A new case for Congressional term limits

Washington Post ^ | October 1, 2014 | George Will

[right-wing agnostic]

“The legislative department is everywhere . . . drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.”

— James Madison, Federalist 48

Unfortunately, Congress’s vortex now spins the other way, throwing off powers that the executive scoops up. Hence this autumn’s spectacle: Feverish House and Senate candidates waging ferocious campaigns to win or retain offices that are of rapidly diminishing significance.

It is official: America “is at war.” We know this because the president’s press secretary says so. Congress has not said so, but many members say that the Islamic State must be countered and that they may have more to say about this in a few months.

Writing at the Federalist Web site, David Corbin and Matthew Parks, professors of politics at the King’s College in New York, say the Constitution’s distribution of powers is normative: The nation should go to war in four steps.

[right-wing agnostic]

The only way I see Congressional term limits being implemented is if they excluded all current members of Congress. Just as Harry Truman, who was president when the 22nd Amendment was proposed by Congress, was excluded from the Amendment's provisions. But the members of Congress are all in it together and won't allow their colleagues' power to be limited. And implementing term limits would certainly limit Congress's power.

FYI Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment includes this provision: "But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term." The 22nd Amendment was ratified by Congress on March 21, 1947 and it was declared in effect on February 27, 1951./rwa

[Right Brother]

The term limit should be ONE term. 6 years. Across the board. President, Senate, House. No worries about who’s butt needs kissing for a second term. Oh, and after you serve your 6 yr. term? No lobbying for 10 years.

[Political Junkie Too]

I don't support term limits. I do support repealing the 17th amendment.

It's odd to see the same people who want to keep the right to vote for Senators also want term limits on them. It's the old "stop me before I kill again" argument.

Either keep the right to vote for someone for the Senate for as long as you want to keep sending them back, or eliminate the right to vote for Senators altogether and let the state legislature select the Senator. Then you vote for the legislature that you want.

But don't demand the right to vote for your Senator, but only let me do it once.

Presidential term limits are a post-17th amendment phenomenon. I wonder why we never had a 3rd term president until Roosevelt? Was it because the Senate no longer represented the states, and the states couldn't influence the federal government like they did just 20 years earlier?

House Representatives are too numerous to care, and their districts are too small to limit whom the locals wish to send to Congress. However, with the rise of the influence of national parties due to the need to raise campaign cash for 33 Senate elections every two years, there is a party trickle-down of money to the House by party members in the Senate. If you eliminate Senate elections, you dry up a major source of campaign funds that would naturally flow to House races, too.

Repeal the 17th amendment, and a natural term limit will be restored across all of the federal government.

-PJ

[Jack Hydrazine]

Put it as a ballot measures at the state level.

[JParris]

Concur 100%.

However, not until the masses are awakened to the screwing they have taken over past 100 years will any change be realized because, as stated so often, no congress critter will work to limit his or his colleagues power. So, until the NFL, NBA and Kardashians stop being the main quest of US brain power it ain't gonna happen.

[Political Junkie Too]

no congress critter will work to limit his or his colleagues power. So... it ain't gonna happen.

That's why we have the Article V convention of the states for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.

Bypass Congress.

-PJ

[pepsionice]

I kinda like the six-year idea too. Although I’d put in an extra rule...when you finish up the sixth and final year...you must return to your state of residence where you started...for a period of one-year. That in itself....limits your ability to become just another lobbyists, and carves off value for your future lobby career. Personally, I don’t these guys ever being willing to set up a ten-year period of no-lobbying in the federal capital.

I might also throw in a rule that says the Senate can only meet for 100 days out of the year.

[JParris]

Again, even an Article V convention will take awakening of the masses or at least enough to become vocal majority to induce states to act. I just don't see it happening. If it were to happen, can't you just see the circus in nominating the delegates? Will it be lovers of freedom and the constitution or entrenched politicians promising more off the .gov teet “if you only send me to the convention?” I am not naive enough to think we would have the scholarly, wise and humble men of previous Con Con.

And on top of that, if .gov doesn't adhere to written law, including the constitution, now, what will make them adhere to anything passed by an Article V convention? Will they suddenly have a revelation that this written law has meaning just because it is the new one?

Don't get me wrong, I am as gung ho on cleaning house and resetting .gov as anybody. But unless and until the masses feel the same it ain't gonna happen. And all they are after is more “free stuff” at .gov expense.

Pass me some a ‘dem nachos and turn on Jerry Springer.......

[Jacquerie]

<> If it were to happen, can't you just see the circus in nominating the delegates?<>

State legislatures will not send popularly elected schlubs off the street to a convention to propose amendments. Delegates will be men of known judgment, and limited by narrow commissions.

[Jacquerie]

Interesting perspective. For those who think representative democracy is so great, why limit elections to congress? Why not popular majority elections for the president and federal courts?

Once FDR showed Congress who was boss, it was all downhill. Then as now, the Senate was the President's rubber-stamp, enabled entirely by the 17th. Few senators would risk their seats to cross the secular messiah sent to earth to save them from the Great Depression.

[Jacquerie]

In the more perfect union design of our Framers, senators could read popular opinion in newspapers and laugh, for the latest infatuation of the masses meant nothing to them. Instead of inflaming passions, which rat senators do today, state appointed senators will focus on the perspectives of their employers, the states.

Hey, how about Mark Levin teaming up with Profs Randy Barnett, Robert Natelson, Michael Farris, Andy McCarthy to press for an Article V convention? Disgust with government is so widespread perhaps there is a chance to get this movement going again.

[556x45]

Term limits are for a formerly free people who are happy in their chains. They were too lazy and apathetic to become involved and looked the other way when evil men took over their country.

[Wolfie]

That's the problem. The masses only believe that someone Congressman is the problem.

[Wolfie]

Oops... Someone else’s Congressman.

[i_robot73]

Like the idea, but I see nothing changing when the 9th and 10th are the abused red-headed step-children (pardon to the truly abused red-headed...)

When the Commerce Clause can bypass the rest of the Constitution, and the Courts routinely site case-law/internal-law vs. the roots in (or outside) the Constitution....

The 17th is only a symptom of the problem.

[i_robot73]

That has been a MANY a moon....just what % of the population takes the time to actually vote? Let’s not even debate % of the population that votes based on something OTHER than party affiliation (that goes for ANY party)?

There is no TRUE representation. Congress barely write ANY Laws. BUT, the bureaucracy they created (where they ILLEGALLY delegated their power entrusted by We The People to the un-elected/able)

[Political Junkie Too]

I don't think it's a symptom; I think it's the root cause.

Remember that the Senate confirms the judges. If the courts are abusing the Commerce clause or ignoring the 9th and 10th, it's because the current post-17th Senate confirmed them along party lines instead of state self-interest.

-PJ

[i_robot73]

And the State will help reign that back in? (by what ‘standing’ these days? /S). Sorry, but even before the 17th, Congress was neglecting the Constitution; with no flack from the States.

I haven’t heard/read/seen a State reign in their OWN judges; I don’t see the sh!t storm (judges, all extra/un-Constitutional, etc.) being reversed even if the 17th were rescinded (IMHO, it should still go).