Archive

State representatives calling for congressional term limits | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

State representatives calling for congressional term limits

webConstitution
National Archives and Records Administration
webConstitution
National Archives and Records Administration

Nine state representatives want Pennsylvania to join a call for a constitutional convention that would impose term limits on the U.S. House and Senate.

The resolution filed Tuesday by Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, a Republican who represents parts of Berks and Lehigh counties, doesn’t suggest what the term limits should be. Any convention authorized by the resolution would be limited to the subject of term limits, according to the document.

“Many people support term limits as a means for bringing fresh ideas and perspectives into legislative bodies and for giving voters more candidate choices over time,” Mackenzie says in a memo to other legislators asking for their support.

Eight other Republican representatives have signed on as co-sponsors.

Florida and Alabama have passed similar bills, according to U.S. Term Limits, an advocacy group created in the early 1990s to push for term limits on Congress and state legislatures.

Under the Constitution , it takes two-thirds of all states, or 34 states, to call for a constitutional convention, which has never happened. Any proposal coming out of a convention would have to be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of all states, or 38 states.

Brian Bowling is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-850-1218, [email protected] or via Twitter @TribBrian.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.