Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on May 23, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

Go for it. It sounds like a good idea for a change to me.

I would go for it.

Term limits removed. 3 months of work. I can live with it. How about adding that the pay drops accordingly? How about removing all health benefits? How about removing all pension benefits?

This bill is a joke. The irony is that our current full time legislature only worked 80 some days last year. Now we want a part time legislature that works the same amount of time with no term limits? This is simply a way to repeal term limits and maintain the current pay. The only positive is that it finally correctly labels this bogus full time legislature as part time.

The idea of part-time legislators has been out there for a while now. It should be passed and include a reduction/removal of the salary and benefits. Heck, after reviewing the bills presented this year, it might even be worth paying these jokers their current salaries and benefits to get them to stay home.

is dangerous and foolish. look at teddy kennedy, he has done nothing for his state but continue to be re-elected by them. if THAT'S what you want, then just repeal the term limits. as for a part time legislature, any group, like this one, that does more harm than good should be made a NO TIME LEGISLATURE. that doesn't take a committee, just a vote of the people.

times forty years, that's a lot of harm that can be done by one demogogue. these guys don't care about the money, they pay MILLIONS to get elected into a job that pays WAY LESS THAN THAT. it's the POWER. if you take away term limits, you GIVE THEM THE POWER TO BE IN OFFICE TILL THEY DIE.

... gets sent back to the US Senate by a majority of his constituents who chose to vote in Senate elections. That is the American way. Term limits for elected officials are fundamentally un-American, as they really place an undue limitation on the people's authority to choose their own representatives and leaders. I write that biting my lip, while thinking about what now occupies the White House, and counting down the days until that is term-limited out. But in the end, as a matter of principle, I would support repeal of Amendment XXII to the US Constitution, enacted in 1951 to limit Presidential terms.

was for term limits. and rightly so. he realized that power corrupts, and absolute power currupts absolutely. i think that teddy kennedy is absolutely corrupt. i also dislike his family getting a dollar off of every bottle of whiskey imported into this country. how does HIS family rate the PERSONAL COLLECTION OF IMPORT DUTIES?

... did not want to be King of the United States. He believed in acting upon his principles and in personal restraint, and so voluntarily declined to pursue the presidency beyond two terms. Government-imposed limitations on the right of the right of the people to choose their own legislative representatives and leaders are un-American. Period. End. That is the principle. Term limits violate that principle. Period. End. There is no getting around it.

The fact that they only "work" about 100 days per year now at "full time" status. Look at the damage they inflict in that little time. Maybe we can just send them home and have them be on call. Name one thing they have done in the last year that we wouldn't have been better off had they done nothing.

and no, you are not right. the presidency has been term limited for quite some time. congress is term limited. many states term limit ANY politician, simply because they ARE politicians. do you truly believe that allowing ONE VOICE to continue in perpetuity will make this state better? only the voices YOU agree with, i'll bet you would be fighting hard for term limits if devoss had won the last two elections. if a politician can't accomplish his objectives in eight years, what makes you think he can accomplish them in twelve? jennie hasn't accomplished anything other than raising taxes, firing cops, and releasing inmates in her last five or six years, one wonders what her goal actually was?

is usually referred to as a DICTATOR. any man who has been elected to office for more than twenty years is referred to as a BENEVOLENT DICTATOR. following your logic, why not just increase the terms the politicians are elected for? governors could be elected to serve till they die, or retire. representatives could be voted in for life. mayors, for forty years instead of four. there have only been a few 'lifer politicians', and that's a GOOD THING. 'lifer politicians' are the reason we have term limits as it is. term limits give a politician the incentive to get things done in a timely manner, not just let things sit till they get around to it.

… as usual, you have it quite wrong on virtually every count. Term limits on the US presidency were established in 1951, by adoption of Amendment XXII to the US Constitution. There is no US Constitutional provision limiting the number of terms US Representatives or Senators can serve. Term limits are an attack on the fundamental right of the American people to choose their own elected legislative representatives and leaders. Period. End. I deplore the current leadership in the White House and look forward eagerly to the day that regime ends. But if given opportunity to repeal Amendment XXII, I would do so in a heartbeat. The only people who favor term limits are those who fear or loathe government of, for and by the people.

set self imposed limits on the term he would spend as the most powerful man in the world. let's say we only elect men who have such high principles that they would not, even if offered, remain in a position of power longer than two terms. does jennie have those kind of scruples?

'lifer politicians' shall we? ted kennedy is a DEMOCRAT. strom thurmon was a REPUBLICAN. there are few others who have been around as long as either one of those. both have been despised by the opposing party. how "un-american" can term limits be if it's a part of our constitution? it's a part of what makes us "american". besides, if you don't like term limits, wait four years and re-elect your candidate. if they are THAT popular, it should be no problem. governor edwin edwards, of louisiana, spent TWELVE YEARS AS GOVERNOR in a state that limits terms. he also ended up in jail. some say, the day he gets out, if he chooses to run, he could be re-elected. long stretches in politics attract such people. do you want one of them for governor? i certainly don't want jennie around for another four years, but i wouldn't mind having "W" in the white house for another four.

... Jennifer Granholm in the governorship, or anyone else in a particular office, do not vote for them. You also may campaign ethusiastically ito elect someone else. That is the American way. Term limits deny the people the choice of whom they wish to elect as legislative representatives and leaders. They are fundamentally un-American. Only those who loathe freedom and government of, by and for the people think term limits are a good idea.

law in 1951. they have been followed, as a matter of principle (except once) since washington. there has only been one president who broke it, and that was during a war. there are other places where politicians for life are the norm... but they are all communist countries.

the freedom of choice to re-elect a democrat is unamerican, but a democrat denying everyone else the freedom of choice whether to wear a helmet is not? how about being denied the freedom of choice on whether or not our children get non-proven vaccines? several attacks on freedom of choice have gone on in this state, and i have not heard ONE WORD of complaint about it, that is until now, when the democrats may be denied the ability to re-elect a democrat for a third, or thirty third term. your party only cares about the freedoms and liberties that benefit your own party. all others are expendable.

i did campaign against her. unfortunately, her promises to not cut welfare earned her more votes from the "tax collectors" than we could muster from the "tax payers". her promise that, while prisons may be closed, and police officers fired, the flow of money and cheese would not stop got her elected. have jennie sign the helmet choice law, get rid of 'permits to purchase handguns' and registration, and 'safety checks that don't check for safety', get rid of the myriad of mandated social programs and entitlements, and THEN i'll believe that your party stands for personal freedoms and liberties.

... and you lost in a political contest. Poor baby. Get over it. If that is your reason for advocating term limits you are a loser in more ways than Michigan gubernatorial elections,.

reason, but "W" being in the white house is the only reason you support abolishing term limits. you believe that you should be able to elect all the democrats you want for as long as you can keep them in office. on the other hand,you would vote to keep republicans out of office completely. i just keep remembering that all it takes is one tiny step FURTHER LEFT from LIBERAL DEMOCRAT AND WE HAVE COMMUNISM. are you looking to abolish term limits so you can establish a totalitarian regime? are you looking to install a king? are you looking to lift a dictator to power?

that jennie has done a good job fixing this state? please give us some concrete examples of that good job.

... I oppose term limits as a matter of principle, not because some particular politician whom I dislike got elected. The principle is that we Americans have a right to elect legislative representatives and government leaders of our own choice. Limiting the num,ber of elected terms any individual is permitted to serve in office impedes that right. I have used the cjurrent occup;ant of the White House, whom I believe is the very model of a bad president, as an example. Although I look forward to the day he and his wrecking crew are gone from the White House, I would support repeal of Amendment XXII to the US Constitution if it were proposed. (Amend. XXII was ratified in 1951, and limits an individual to two terms as US president.) Likewise, I advocate getting rid of term limits in Michigan government, irrespective of who is in office. What is it about principle and the principle of self-governance that you refuse to understand or accept? Do you loathe government of the people, for the people and by the people? That is the only reason for supporting term limits, you know.

reason you loathe the right to choose in so much other legislation. you don't stand for PERSONAL FREEDOM CHOICE unless it impacts you directly. your party's stand on several issues on this site bear that out. your party DOES NOT stand for personal freedom of choice when it comes to whether or not to wear a helmet. your party DOES NOT stand for personal freedom of choice when it comes to registering handguns. your party DOES NOT stand for personal freedom of choice when it comes to administration of untried vaccines to our daughters. and your party CERTAINLY DOES NOT stand for personal freedom of choice when it comes to the raising of taxes, fines, and fees. so, why the sudden change?

i asked for some concrete examples of how jennie has made this state better, and got NO REPLY. i guess it's true then, she HASN'T made this state any better.

principle of self government does the governor stand for? she vetoed a bill that would allow CHOICE in wearing a helmet, after a majority of the elected officials representing a majority of the people passed it. she is forcing a SUPER-MAJORITY to pass it. how is that standing for self government? she has blocked a bill to bring capital punishment to this state, a law that 60% of the people in this state support, CLEARLY she is moving against a majority of the people there. how does that show that she stands for government of, by and FOR the people? she has released prisoners, which endangers the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. she has already fired police officers, which also endangers the populace. how, does THIS show a respect for the common man? you say you are for self government, and personal liberties, but the actions of those who represent your party make you a liar.

tsjp vgpajym jsnlhyd phijxcq gjaiouz oejzvqn mxidhjlqn