Posted on 02/28/2026 9:06:11 AM PST by Starman417
Our Founding Fathers were geniuses. They were far from perfect, but they were generally virtuous men, and they gifted us with a constitution far superior to anything that had ever been written. The document they wrote was imperfect, as all things that men create are, but it was extraordinary nonetheless – even with the 3/5 Compromise.
They gave us a system with a separation of powers, both within the federal government and between the federal and state governments. The Bill of Rights, which was basically the quid pro quo agreed to for ratification, extended that distribution of powers by recognizing that some rights belonged to the citizens and were largely beyond the power of government to impeach upon.
In hindsight however, the Founding Fathers made one fatal error, and we’re seeing it play out right in front of us today. And it’s somewhat curious that they made it…
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, read widely in preparation for writing it. He read the writings of Enlightenment thinkers such as Locke and Montesquieu. He looked at the Constitutions of the various American states. And he studied governments throughout history such as the Dutch Republic, the Achaean League and of course, as practically all of the Founders did, the Roman Republic.
And this is what puzzles me. A critical element of the success of the Roman Republic was term limits, which were adopted for the specific purpose of preventing an individual from accumulating too much power and leading to a new monarchy. Magistrates, from Quaestors (the entry level bureaucrat workhorses) to Consuls (highest ordinary office; supreme executive/military authority) whose terms ran 1 year each, were generally forbidden from being reelected to the same office for a decade. This ensured that the power remained with the office itself rather than the individual.
With very few exceptions – largely dictatorships, an office rarely called upon and usually for military emergencies – this system of checks allowed the Roman Republic to survive for half a millennium (509 – 27 BC). What’s more, it was when these limits started to be ignored, first with the Gracchi Brothers and then Marius & Sulla, that the precipitous collapse of the Republic began. Of course the Gracchi Brothers in particular were responding to a Senate that was intransigent about sharing power – and wealth – with the rest of Italy. (The Senate was largely hereditary and made up of the oldest families and richest men in Rome.)
It’s curious, knowing that Madison and the Founding Fathers were well aware of this history, that they didn’t feel the need to include term limits in our Constitution, particularly as they had included them in the Articles of Confederation.
There are of course reasons for that. Our Founding Fathers never imagined Congress would be a full-time endeavor. It was a part time job, usually meeting maybe 6 months a year as travel was slow and most congressmen had farms or law practices or businesses that needed to be attended to back home. What’s more, initially there was not a great deal for the federal government to do. Indeed, state governments, particularly Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York were far more compelling destinations for powerful men than Washington. Demonstrating this, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stepped down to become Governor of New York, and when later President Adams reappointed him and the Senate confirmed him, he declined, citing the court’s lack of "the energy, weight and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government."
At the end of the day, these combined to suggest to a majority of the delegates that term limits would be unnecessary and overly restrictive.
Sadly, that oversight is today starting to hemorrhage and the Republic’s future is at stake.
From Georgia to Arizona to Minnesota, Americans are watching in real time as revelations about the coup d'état in 2020 finally see the light of day. Suddenly we’re seeing massive amounts of proof that that thing that Democrats warned about for years before the 2020 election, then swore was impossible after it, happened regularly. Across the country and always in one direction.
Americans see this. And want to fix it, or at least 85% of the population does. But they can’t.
Why? Because we have a handful of GOP senators who simply don’t care and there is little Americans can do about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Term limits could be imposed via a constitutional amendment. My suggestion would have three parts: (1) extend the term of Reps to 4 years; (2) limit Senators to 3 terms and Reps to 4 terms; and (3) no one could serve more than 20 years combined as a Senator and Rep. I’d be open to reducing the terms to two for Senate and three for Rep. The term extension for Reps would be to reduce the percent of time in office spent on campaigning.
What does this guy mean? Even with the 3/5 compromise? to see arguing slaves should’ve been counted in the census at 100%? Giving southern states extra congressman to supposedly represent slaves that cannot vote? Or was he suggesting those populations do not get counted at all, and for the union not to happen, and for the British remain in control? The 3/5 compromise was a slap at slavery, not a commentary on the lesser humanity of slaves. Hard to take anything else this clown says seriously
Good point. Term limits would basically compress the time that any corruption would take place; the deals would be done in the terms the corrupt elected official was available.
There is something they can do. It has been in the Constitution from day one yet in over 250 years it has never been used....
Article V. The Convention of States. The Founders knew that in spite of their best efforts power would tend to centralize into the District of Corruption. So they put in a peaceful process for change.
When it was really needed, like the issue of slavery , both sides were afraid the other would win. War settled the matter and the Constitution got amended that way instead.
How about we skip another bloody Republican-Democrat War this time around and actually use Article V?
Any such attempts are doomed to failure. It treats the symptoms and not the problem. The problem is simply too much power in Federal hands. The more power you concentrate into the District of Corruption the higher the bidding price for politicians is going to become. Any attempts to steer the money away will be undone by greedy hands eager to get their hands on all that loot . The solution is to limit that power in the first place. Just like it was meant to be in the beginning.
“The solution is to limit that power in the first place. Just like it was meant to be in the beginning.”
The proposed amendment does just that, in part. But it would be a mistake to think the proposed amendment or any other single amendment would save the Republic. The nation suffers from a variety of maladies that can destroy the great experiment handed to us to continue.
Isn't there a 4th? Who is it?
-PJ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Roman_Republic
Roman elections and their changes of officials was not as egalitarian as the authors would have you believe. Even term limits did not alter or change the dominance of certain groups and their ability to switch out an incumbent they favored with a new one already blessed by the same backers that had backed the incumbent.
Which is what term limits would mean here.
Ex a toy! The 3/5 Compromise is one of the most misunderstood things in history. It had nothing at all to do with racism and placing a lesser value on black people. All you need to consider is which side wanted what. Southern states, you know the racist slave owners, wanted to count slaves fully. Northern states wanted to not count slaves at all. This had nothing to do with the value placed on them as humans (which, sadly, was indeed very little in any of the states) and everything to do with representation in Congress. It was a purely political dispute and the 3/5 compromise was a purely political resolution
The true fatal flaw is not specifying that the government could not use deficit spending on unconstitutional items.
They specified that the government cannot tax for items not set forth in the Constitution. But they failed to state that it is prohibited to use taxes to pay debt.
They should have said debt can only be paid through tariffs, which would have forced a balanced budget in perpetuity.
From the standpoint of the Northern states, it would have been better not to count the slaves at all when calculating representation (most of them still had slavery in 1787 but only small numbers of slaves). It is falsely represented as meaning that the Framers considered black people only three-fifths of a person.
The only Presidential election which might have turned out differently without the added electoral votes assigned to the slave states because of the compromise was the election of 1800. If John Adams had been re-elected and had been President in 1803, would he have accepted Napoleon's offer of the Louisiana Territory? My guess is that he would have (even if many New Englanders didn't like the idea). But there also would not have been a Marbury v. Madison case coming before the Supreme Court...so would John Marshall have found a way to establish judicial supremacy some other way?
All true but remember what John Adams said; “ Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.
Another Constitutional amendment that was declare ratified, though it never was within the time limit allowed.
Article V Convention of the States is demonized as more dangerous than the dictatorship of the powerful and wealthy, this Country is living under.
People are angry, but also afraid.
It’s amazing that such a bold truth, and such a humanitarian move against slavery is now taught as “they say black people were only 3/5ths of a human being!”.
It’s truly criminal. Even this writer who has a very valid point, still kneels before the 3/5 lie.
Both sides are afraid the other will get the Lions share if it happens. Both sides cannot both be right.
Both sides are afraid the other will get the Lions share if it happens. Both sides cannot both be right.
Both sides are afraid the other will get the Lions share if it happens. Both sides cannot both be right.
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.