Posted on 12/16/2018 7:37:52 AM PST by Kaslin
Do politicians oppose term limits on principle?
For the answer to be yes, we would first have to explain to them what principles are.
Yet, even beyond consideration of such thorny truths, or their visceral flashing-a-cross-to-a-vampire reaction to the two words “term limits,” are politicians — even the most career-obsessed, decades-long incumbents — unalterably opposed to term limits?
Not a trick question. Sure, politicians adamantly oppose term limits that cut against their self-interest, i.e. have the audacity to apply to them. But they are often for term limits . . . when the limitation applies to others.
Meaning, of course, that our congresspeople are — on this issue, at least (perchance others?) — incredibly slippery creatures who care only about their own naked self-interest.
Who knew?
Way back in 1994, congressional Republicans embraced the notion of rotation in office in their “Contract With America.” But how excited about it were they, really? Challengers, enthusiastically; longtime incumbents... well, not so much.
But when the issue helped them finally overcome 40 years of Democratic legislative domination to seize the majority beginning with the 104th Congress in 1995, the newly membered House voted on numerous proposals for term limits.
More than 80 percent of the chamber, a clear majority of both Republican and Democratic members, voted to limit committee chairman to three two-year terms, or six years, and the House Speaker to eight years, or four two-year terms. The measure only lost, not surprisingly, among the committee chairs themselves.
So, with committee chair positions limited, was Congress on a roll? Well, consider what happened when the GOP leadership brought four constitutional amendments to the House floor, proposing a limit on the terms of each and every member of Congress. Needing fewer votes than the rule limiting chairmen, all four amendments still fell well short of passage.
The “principle” seems to be as stated above: politicians like limits that apply not to them, but to others.
The exception to this rule seems to be when limiting one’s own terms — or pledging to do so in the future — appears absolutely essential in order to win an election. (Not that a number of honest people haven’t kept pledges to limit their time in office voluntarily; they have.)
Again, think back to 1994, when Republican challenger George Nethercutt became term limits incarnate in his race against House Speaker Tom Foley. He did so not merely by saluting the term limitation initiative enacted at the ballot box by Washington state citizens, which Foley had filed suit to overturn, but also by pledging to serve no more than the three-term/six-year stretch that voters had established as the limit, without regard to whether the law were upheld in court.
On the strength and clarity of his message, along with $350,000 in a chorus of TV and radio ads by term-limit groups, Nethercutt became the first person to defeat a sitting Speaker of the House since before the Civil War.
Six years later, Nethercutt broke his word, claiming his seniority and experience were too important to his district to cast it all aside. He ran for a fourth term, and won, and then a fifth term. Then, he cast it all aside to move up to a Senate seat in 2004, but lost, his lack of integrity proving something of a negative.
Today, consider the case of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who wishes to be elected Speaker in January by the new Democratic House majority. Mrs. Pelosi is an unlikely candidate...for Mrs. Term Limits. True, her Democratic majority kept committee chair limits when she first gained the speaker’s gavel in 2007, for which I applauded. But in 2009, notably her last term as speaker, Democrats jettisoned the term limits on the position.
Republicans had scrapped the eight-year limits for then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, claiming he would be ineffective as a lame duck, back in 2003. So they kept the now-admitted sexual molester of underage boys in his powerful position.
Politics.
Now, again, the issue impacts the majority of Democrats and Mrs. Pelosi, who agreed to support a new rule imposing term limits on leadership positions — even her own speakership.
What gives?
A number of newly elected congresspeople won their seats on a promise to change Washington. And to gain votes, these freshmen Democrats had pledged not to support the exceedingly unpopular, long-serving Swamp Creature for speaker.
Or should that be Mrs. Swamp Creature?
With Democrats comprising a narrow 17-seat majority in the new Congress, these young upstarts wield enough votes to deny Pelosi the position she covets.
So, against the objections of her longtime lieutenants, Pelosi has promised these “rebels” that she will not merely bring before her caucus a new rule imposing limits of three terms for leadership positions, including her own, but she also insists that even if that rule fails to win the support of the Democratic caucus, she will personally, voluntarily, abide by those limits.
Meet the Missus?
If only voters had some leverage.
Put term limits instead on our massive, unelected, permanent bureaucracy.
The Freshmen Dems will bow to madame speaker like Gumby. They have no spine and will vote her way when threatened w cleaning the loos.
While I’ve been skeptical about the idea of a convention of states to amend the Constitution, here’s an area where it will absolutely be necessary.
However, term limits for Congress will just empower unelected bureaucrats unless we do something about them as well. Either institute a hard limit on tenure of federal employment for anyone above a certain pay grade, or roll back the civil service and bring back the spoils system for any executive branch position with any real subastantive authority. If you have a political job, you should be a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the elected (and term-limited) President.
You get it. That’s a much bigger issue.
And 3 terms is too short for house members. I’d be in favor of an Amendment for term limiting House members to 3 terms AND making the terms 4 years. 2 years is absurd, these people are continuously running for office. Make the Senate 3 terms as well, 12 and 18 year term limits, 8 for the Presidency.
Go for 20 years for SCOTUS while we’re at it?
But back to your point, the enormous, and enormously powerful unelected bureaucracy is a bigger issue.
Term limits at every level.
One and done.
We’re on the same page.
The current coterie of attorneys and career political hacks will never allow either of those to happen.
I'd like to see the House terms lengthened to 5 years, and the Senate terms reduced to 5 years, and the Presidential terms lengthened to 5 years, and all three limited to two terms and no more than ten years (so no grandfathering into an additional partial term after filling a vacancy). There'd be a federal election each year, with the 50 basic House seats (the one for each state) running in the same year as the Presidency, along with the balance of the 1/5th of each state's total, with 1/5th elected in each off year. This would get the House members out of the rat wheel of having to run for reelection basically continuously, and prevent precipitous changes of agenda based on issues the voters have forgotten by the time everyone is sworn in. Senators (still at-large per state) would be elected on years 2 and 5 of the cycle.
Congressman John Dingell Jr.: 1955 - 2015
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell: 2015 - probably till death
That's 86 years and counting of Dingells in congress
Her successor will likely be their son Christopher
Too many years, too many Dingells.....
Yea, we definitely need term limits
A dynasty of home grown communists.
Move up or move out.
The permanent, bureaucratic, deep-state would love congressional term limits. Congress is all we peasants have left to influence government. Imagine a congressman with a 6 year limit trying navigate or change the inertia and power of the bureaucracy? Its already a very desperate situation now.
How about 10 year limits on every single government program? Unless they are specifically re-authorized, they automatically expire.
I personally believe that the deep-state exists because of our cheap, printed, fiat monetary system, courtesy of the Federal Reserve
Massive debt in printed money, linked to nothing, means both congress and government can always promise, and spend, ever-more on the welfare/warfare state and social-engineering projects.
You might say “no one is forcing them to spend this.” Which is like telling a heroin addict - no one forced you to become addicted.
We need voters to limit her majority to one term.
But we only want limits on the OTHER guys!
Our guys are doing a FINE job!!
Sorry; but there wouldn’t be enough time for the new folks to read the complete Federal Record; to see what laws we already have on the books; before their term would be over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.