Congressional term limits aren't the answer to Washington's problems. Elections are
Rep. John King, D-York: 'I believe we do have term limits. Every two years people can decide whether they want to send us back here as we've seen. People have voted some of our colleagues out of office, and you have (incumbent politicians come up for re-election0 every four years in the Senate, six years in the U.S. Senate.
'Term limits to me are every time we run for office. We should not be telling people who they want to represent them on the state or federal level. That's why we have districts. And those people in our districts have sent us here and they have determined who they want to be their representatives. So I think that if you feel like D.C. needs to have term limits then you need to be doing something about term limits here in South Carolina.
'I just have a problem with us wanting to carve out our congressional folk and say they should have term limits and then not look at the South Carolina General Assembly and not have term limits for us. I just believe that we have what we have as term limits presently. When people go to the polls every two years they can decide who they want to elect and be their representatives.'
Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg: 'I personally don't believe in term limits. I think that people are going to vote for who they want to vote for. If they like you and you're doing a good job and you're pleasing the majority of your constituents, they'll keep sending you back.
'To me, term limits arbitrarily tie the hands of the general public. Because even if they wanted to keep someone they thought was doing a good job — or alternatively they maybe didn't think they were doing a good job but they thought they were better than the alternative choice — if you impute term limits in any fashion, you're tying their hands and you're forcing a decision on them.
'I think that's the opposite of small government. Let people decide. And I highly question any data that says that 70% of South Carolinians or whoever are in favor of term limits on the federal level because we have almost had the same federal delegation forever. One, two, three, four, five, 10 terms or whatever it is. So I question the validity of that data. I don't believe it because if that were the case then we'd have an entire brand new federal delegation already.
If Congress won't impose term limits on itself, the states need to enact them | Opinion
'Term limits, again, just restrict people's freedoms. You've got folks who want to see the presidency be able to have a third term because they love the particular president that much, and I don't agree, but I respect the fact that they think that. But for a presidential term limit, they'd be able to try to do that.'
Rep. Jerry Govan, D-Orangeburg: 'This bill has seemingly been up in front of this body almost every year, at least for 20 years that I'm aware of. It comes up every year, and what I think people need to recognize is that, in terms of the drawback on term limits, you lose a lot of institutional knowledge, in terms of the body, in terms of how things work, the process....
'One of the things that we need to be concerned about is of course the further ungirdling of this thing that we call a democracy because the people every two years get an opportunity to decide whether that representative or senator is doing a good job or a bad job, whether it's on the federal level or the state level. And I don't think we need to treat the federal level any differently than we treat ourselves.…
'It's important in the long term that we look at how this works on a national level for a small state like South Carolina, which has a small number of … members of Congress, where seniority is important.
'Where would the state of South Carolina be if we did not have single legislators in place such as Congressman (Jim) Clyburn? I think, because of his seniority in the Congress through both Democratic and Republican administrations, he has been successful in terms of guiding billions of dollars for high-speed internet and also for infrastructure back to the state. That didn't just happen. That came about because of the leverage that he had because of his seniority.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 current and former government officials
Many of the officials who were targeted left the government years ago after serving in both senior national security positions and lower-profile roles far from the public eye. Some worked on matters that have long infuriated Trump, like the intelligence community assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election on his behalf. And several signaled their concerns about Trump by signing a critical letter in 2019 that was highlighted on social media last month by right-wing provocateur and close Trump ally Laura Loomer. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The action is part of a broader Trump administration campaign to wield the levers of government against perceived adversaries, and it reflects the president's continued distrust of career intelligence officials he has long seen as working against his interests. Advertisement The revocation of clearances has emerged as a go-to tactic for the administration, a strategy that critics say risks chilling dissenting voices from a national security community accustomed to drawing on a range of viewpoints before formulating an assessment. 'These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action,' Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer whose own clearance was revoked by the Trump administration, said in a statement. Advertisement He called it hypocritical for the administration to 'claim these individuals politicized or weaponized intelligence.' Gabbard on Tuesday defended the move, which she said had been directed by Trump. 'Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,' she wrote on X. 'Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.' The security clearance suspension comes amid a broader effort by Gabbard and other Trump administration officials to revisit the intelligence community's assessment on Russian election interference, including by declassifying a series of years-old documents meant to cast doubt on the legitimacy of its findings. Multiple government investigations have reached the same conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping fashion, including through a hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails and a social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and swaying public opinion. But Trump has long resisted the assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in his favor, and his Justice Department has authorized a grand jury investigation that could bring fresh scrutiny to Obama-era officials. Security clearances are important not only for current government workers but also former ones whose private-sector jobs require them to retain access to sensitive information. Stripping clearances from such employees could make it hard for them to do their jobs. On his first day of office, Trump said he would revoke the security clearances of the more than four dozen former intelligence officials who signed a 2020 letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop saga bore the hallmarks of a 'Russian information operation.' Advertisement He's also revoked the clearances of former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, and he attempted to do the same for lawyers at a spate of prominent law firms but was rebuffed by federal judges. Some of those who were targeted in the latest action were part of Biden's national security team. Many only learned of the Gabbard action from news reports Tuesday, said two former government officials who were on the list. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity as they ponder whether to take legal action.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does Trump have the power to ban mail-in ballots in U.S. elections?
By Jack Queen (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump wants to ban mail-in ballots in federal elections, a form of voting popular with many Americans. About three in 10 ballots were cast through the mail in the 2024 general election, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Trump, a Republican, does not have clear legal authority to do this, though his allies in Congress and state governments could enact policies barring the practice. Here is a look at Trump's authority and how the law could be changed. CAN TRUMP UNILATERALLY BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? Only states and the U.S. Congress can pass laws regulating elections. A unilateral ban by the president on mail-in ballots would likely exceed Trump's limited authority to enforce existing law. In a Monday social media post, Trump said mail-in ballots are susceptible to fraud and that he would lead a movement to ban them, beginning with an executive order bringing "honesty" to the November 2026 midterm elections. Republicans have filed scores of lawsuits seeking to end mail-in voting in recent years, citing possible fraud. Democrats generally support mail-in ballots as a way to expand access to voting. Voter fraud in the U.S. is extremely rare, multiple studies have shown. White House representatives provided a general statement about Trump's election policies but did not answer questions about his legal authority to ban mail-in ballots or what an executive order would say. COULD TRUMP'S ALLIES BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? States are responsible for administering their votes under the U.S. Constitution, and Republican-controlled legislatures could pass laws banning mail-in ballots so long as they do not conflict with federal law. Congress could ban the use of mail-in ballots in federal elections and override state laws protecting their use, but Trump's Republican Party has slim majorities in Congress and would face difficulty getting past opposition by Democrats. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats. To pass a mail-in ballot ban they would need to end the filibuster, a longstanding tradition requiring 60 of the chamber's 100 members to approve most legislation. State and federal laws banning mail-in voting could be challenged in court as unconstitutional impediments to voting. WHAT OTHER POWERS DO PRESIDENTS HAVE OVER ELECTIONS? Presidents in the U.S. have some discretion in enforcing election laws, and Trump could try to use those powers to end or restrict mail-in voting, though it is unclear how. In June, a federal judge blocked parts of an executive order by Trump requiring voters to prove they are U.S. citizens and attempting to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. The Trump administration is appealing. "The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," said U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law. Solve the daily Crossword
