Perdue Co-Sponsors Term Limits Resolution

He talked about it on the campaign trail, and Senator David Perdue is keeping his promise. He is a co-sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1, which would limit the terms of Members of Congress. The measure is sponsored by Sen. David Vitter [R-LA], but it’s interesting to look at the complete list of cosponsors:

Sen. Ron Johnson, [R-WI], Sen. Pat Toomey, [R-PA], Sen. Mike Lee, [R-UT], Sen. Marco Rubio, [R-FL], Sen. Ted Cruz, [R-TX], Sen. Deb Fischer, [R-NE], Sen. Ben Sasse, [R-NE], Sen. David Perdue, [R-GA], and Sen. Steve Daines, [R-MT].


  1. BriscoeDarlin says:

    Interesting that perdue is actually keeping a campaign promise? Given recent behavior by others in GAs freshman class it is interesting.

  2. gcp says:

    I like it but with careerists like Grassley, Hatch and Feinstein this thing may not make it out of the judiciary commmittee.

  3. Dave Bearse says:

    So did Perdue not vote for McConnell as he said he would do in a televised debate, or did he cop out like Hice, Loudermilk and Allen did?

  4. Raleigh says:

    Voters have always had the power to institute term limits. This is nothing more that smoke and mirrors and it will never happen. I hope he has something of more substance to offer in the future.

    • Dr. Monica Henson says:

      Agreed. Term limits are inherent in the fact that elections are held on a regular basis. Total smoke & mirrors.

    • Will Durant says:

      I think open primaries along with some campaign finance reform are the best ways to obtain term limits for the non-achievers. Even the playing field so that hopefully we get to the point that only effective incumbents are reelected.

  5. Ed says:

    Of all the things horribly wrong with our legislative branch that should and could be fixed quickly… This is not one of them.

  6. Three Jack says:

    Term Limits legislation = Voters are too apathetic to decide who will be their representative. It is up to an informed citizenry to impose term limits, not the politicians. Bad idea and pretty disappointing that Perdue would jump on that bandwagon as his first act.

        • saltycracker says:

          I feel surrounded by suspicious legislative activity so until we gain a hint of personal responsibility I’m for auto turnover. 🙂

          • Three Jack says:

            Forcing all legislators to be term limited no matter their performance is not the correct way to address an issue. It is up to individual voters to accept the enormous privilege of voting based on gathered knowledge that is easily attained via the internet these days.

            • Will Durant says:

              Lest we forget. Our vaunted forefathers only gave the vote to those with skin in the game. Not saying it was right, but we could use a cautious return to voting being a privilege and not a right. Not trying to discriminate against anyone other than the stupid or blissfully ignorant. Perhaps a “Jaywalking” level civics test?

    • benevolus says:

      Actually, I think it’s more about people wanting to have some influence over somebody ELSE’S representative.

  7. Doug Deal says:

    14% of people support Congress in general, but an overwleming majority of voters support their own Congressman. The reason this is not a paradox is that people love when their own Congressman does the vary things they hate when someone else’s Congressman does them.

    Also, the longer someone serves the more power a Congressman collects. This is bad for the country, as we are not supposed to be a government of men, but a government of laws. The individuals are not supposed to be important, but the principles behind our Constitution.

    Term limits protect the rest of the country from the power of a single district who happens to have a power Congressman (or state and Senator). Many of you tout the fact that we are not a democracy, but a republic and that the minority needs to be protected from the majority, but for some reason the same people then champion “letting the voters decide” on term limits. Why is it so hard to see that the accumulation of power in the hands of a few overly powerful members of the government is a bad idea and forcing them to retire (even if temporarily) partially remedies that.

    If term limits are so bad, why are they okay for the President? If they aren’t okay for the President, then how about Obama for 4-5 terms or George W Bush?

    • benevolus says:

      I don’t mind term limits for executive branch, not really sure why. I guess it does seem like a consolidation of power that should be changed regularly.
      Legislative branch however, I think should have no limits. Whatever power exists in Congress will continue to exist even with term limits, it will just transfer to staff and to lobbyists, and that’s even worse.

    • saltycracker says:


      Correct. Even a green legislator is elected/assumed qualified to lead and manage his staff and make sound decisions for all the citizens.

      There is also less time and motivation by the influential and lobbyists to get their hooks into them.

Comments are closed.