0 votes

Rand Paul: "I will vote to institute term limits"

U.S. Senator Rand Paul tells the story of his surprising rise to national prominence in his new book 'The Tea Party Goes to Washington.'

Less surprising is Rand’s reiterating of his support for Congressional term limits amid his broader program for reforming – or, better, reducing – the federal government. At the end of the book he lays down several clear promises:

“I will vote to institute term limits. I will not vote for a tax increase. I will not vote for earmarks. I will not vote for an unbalanced budget. I will not vote to go to war without a formal declaration as our soldiers deserve and our Constitution demands.”

Certainly this is the Tea Party ethos in a nutshell.

In an interesting side story, Rand notes that a student asked him if his support of term limits required him to oppose veteran Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. “I replied that, no, my support for term limits would mean even my father would have to come home and I wasn’t running against my father either.”


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bad idea

Bad idea for several reasons.

1. I want Ron Paul going back for as many terms as he chooses.

2. It is unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution is the legislature given the power to dictate whom states and House districts may elect?

3. It would restrict choice, by government decree.

The problem is the seniority system. Surely the thing change is that. Perhaps someone in a district where the representatives (senators maybe) do not have much seniority could sue for equal representation.

After the French Revolution started going bad, the Committee for Public Safety instituted term limits (six months). Rotating scoundrels proved to be no better than permanent scoundrels. The people still wanted their heads. They turned to a little big man named Napoleon Bonaparte, whose top selling point was that he was not adverse to using grapeshot on civilians. The rest is history also.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Mandatory term limits reduce liberty.

What right does this generation have to tell future generations that they cannot send their choice to Washington either once or dozen s of times?

Term limits does not improve or degrade the quality of our elected officials. If one were to argue that something must be done, then I would agree. But it is up to the people to elected quality representatives.

It's not like there are so many qualified and honest politicians that we can afford to apply an arbitrary standard like term limits to the problem.

Free includes debt-free!

Government must be limited to protect liberty

Elections are government programs. And just like other legitimate government functions, such as police, military and courts, they must be subject to limitations to protect individual liberty and to ensure they are not skewed to protect those in power. In so many countries they are as a matter of course.

Here's Rand's case for term limits. I find it persuasive:


Hi P.B. MIchigan has term limits

What was expected? What was produced?


In Michigan, in the end, big money lobbyists still win elections for their candidates. And people aren't making better choices or getting better elected officials, at least not that one can notice.

Has any data been uncovered that points to measurable improvements in jurisdictions that sport term limits?

The problem is an apathetic electorate that bases its permission to vote for a candidate based on who was able to buy the best brand imprint.

Term limits or campaign finance regulation will not produce competent voters, IMO.

It's a important discussion. I wonder if their is a free market solution other than what's offered in the Constitution.

Michigan has a balanced budget amendment, too. Yet we are $6 billion in debt. Go figure.

Free includes debt-free!