Posted on 03/21/2021 6:38:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the year 1900, the median age of Americans at the age of death was 49 years old. In the year 2018, that figure had risen to above age 80.
As our life spans increase, no one thinks beans about dementia-free septuagenarians running for president, and soon enough, an octogenarian, someone in his or her 80s, will run for president. That brings us to the issue of term limits. When the Founding Fathers first drafted the Constitution setting out the ground rules as to who could be a senator or congressional representative, they couldn't easily have foreseen the advanced life spans to which we have aspired.
Yes, Ben Franklin lived to be 84 years old, Thomas Jefferson 83, James Madison 85, and John Adams 90. However, they were anomalies for their era. George Washington only made it to 67. As late as 1970, life expectancy in the U.S. hovered at a fraction above age 70.
Today, we're faced with the reality that congressional representatives and senators, elected in their 30s or 40s can end up serving for 30 to 40 years or more. We have a vile and vindictive Nancy Pelosi, 81 next week, Patrick Leahy, approaching 81, and Dianne Feinstein, 87, all who should have been unelected decades ago.
Some Republicans have served long as well; Chuck Grassley, 87, and Richard Shelby, 86, come to mind. In any case, serving more than 30 years in the Senate, indeed more than 24 years, and, it could be argued, more than 18 years, is probably way too much. The Founding Fathers did not envision congressional representation as a career, let alone, a lifetime avocation.
Seven-year senator Ted Kennedy, in a jurisdiction outside of Massachusetts, could have been convicted for manslaughter or at least leaving the scene of an accident and lying to county and city officials regarding the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Yet, he served another 40 years in the Senate, for a total of 47 years.
A Golden Chance Blown
One absolutely knows that a push for term limits is not going to happen under Biden, or whoever is running the show from the White House, and his cronies in the Senate and House of Representatives. Unfortunately, when the Trump administration had a GOP majority in the House and the Senate, it did not push for term limits. That would have been the most opportune time.
If a push for term limits were to magically happen, the first order of business would be to determine an appropriate term length for senators and representatives. I suggest three terms in the Senate, totaling 18 years. I suggest six terms in the house totaling 12 years. Why the disparity? Senators, being lesser in number in most states, don't run as often and need to generate influence during their tenure. Moreover, continuity of leadership seems vital in the Senate.
In the House, congressional representatives are virtually running for office perpetually, so six elections is plenty. A limit of 12 years would eliminate maniacal leaders (hint: Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Eric Swalwell) from rising to the top and staying put decades past the time that they are already harming America.
Not on Our Watch
William F. Buckley once said something along the lines of, "I would sooner be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 members of the faculty of Harvard." As corollary, I personally would sooner be governed by the first 2,000 names in any swing state city phone directory than by the 117th Congress.
An underlying problem with this or any Congress ever supporting a term limits amendment is that whoever is in power at the time likely doesn't want this amendment drive to proceed. For the good of the country, however, some patriots might proceed, recognizing that the strength of America, far into the future, is more important than their particular tenure.
Thankfully, a group called U.S. Term Limits is seeking to initiate a convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to propose a term limits amendment for the U.S. House and Senate. Perhaps a Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, or Marsha Blackburn would be vocal proponents, especially if they knew that a sound approach to governing was in place.
either.
There would be no need for term limits if we simply enforced limits on the power of the Federal government.
***********
You are correct. As the size of government expands (does it do anything else?) the opportunities for corruption, waste, and self-serving malfeasance increase exponentially, not to mention the erosion of our rights.
Fedzilla has become a destructive monster that is so big and overreaching it has become the cause of many of our problems.
The Founder had the right idea but their fears and admonitions about big government have been ignored. We’re now seeing the disastrous consequences.
The question that arises is, "what is the message being sent by the selection of Joe and Kamala?"
That they are completely unlikely to have been elected in an honest election seems to be telling us, among other things, that whoever IS in control wants there to be no mistake in thinking that Joe or Kamala is in charge.
For the timid souls who are soiling their drawers over what could go wrong the enemy just stole a Presidential election. How else are you going to bring this power hungry Junta to an end? They will be able to enact their own amendments soon enough with the Congress. Just like the enemy has a supermajority in California NOW.
Thank you!
Term limits is a very bad idea which suggests that by shuffling the deck we get improvements.
Not only would we strip away those few players who are actually patriotic & capable but the newbies are corrupted before even reaching Washington. Their allegiance is bought by campaign contributions. Any left unsold is captured promptly by lobbyists. One cannot obviate voter responsibilities by term limits. Patriotic small government Americans must clean house locally, promote candidates who reflect our values and recall those who slip through.
If we strengthen the local party organizations by demanding adherence to Constitutional precepts we could even deny people who are not fit to run for the higher offices based on dual or foreign allegiance at birth.
Utter nonsense. Even if Trump had been in favor of term limits there were not 67 votes in the Senate or 292 votes in the House to pass the required amendment.
We have term limits in our hands, just ask Eric Cantor.
Back in the 1980s, I worked as a legislative counsel to a republican state assemblyman, in the democrat-controlled Assembly. Every two years, at the start of the new legislative session, he co-sponsored the term limit legislation, which never saw the light of day, but provided him with campaign material for the four terms that he served in the Assembly. He was then elected to the republican-controlled Senate, where he never again sponsored the term limit legislation, and where he did nothing for the next 22 years, except pick up a big paycheck and accept awards and congratulations for spending taxpayers' money, as if the money came out of his own pocket.
This is where the Founding Fathers screwed up , they never realized there would be Professional Politicians(the worst of the worst for the US)
Nor did the Founding Fathers ever envision that the American people would tolerate such malfeasance and greed from their elected representatives. Such a complete lack of accountability in this republic (largely a function of our own forbearance) was beyond their comprehension.
We voters enable the corruption and its insidious effects on us all. We don’t seem to mind living with the consequences of our apathy.
To get better representatives in DC comb through the laws that give advantage to incumbents. Those are the 'laws' the worst of our Representatives make sure they always read, support, and milk.
This is where the Founding Fathers screwed up , they never realized there would be Professional Politicians(the worst of the worst for the US)
**************
They didn’t screw up. They gave us a great framework and we screwed it up. This is on us, not them.
Can an amendment to an extant amendment be pondered?
Thank you, thank you, thank you. The 2nd post and you nailed the problem with term limits concisely and effectively.
President Trump’s battles illustrates your position. We will get more weaselly worthless wonks like Lt Col Vindman, Eric Ciaramella and the rest of the unelected bottom feeding swamp critters if we adopt term limits without addressing your points. Always remember their motto STAFF RUES!
True dat.
Wasn’t term limits shot down by the supreme court?
If term limits had been started 200 years ago they would have been terminated 100 years ago. The American political system was created to serve the people. It’s main use now is to enrich certain people (politicians and their “connections”) at the expense of most other people.
That’s how we wound up with the Constitution to start with. They assembled to revise the Articles of Confederation....and no more.
EXACTLY! I watched John Brennan, James Comey and James Clapper nearly take down an elected President. They had vast power because of their time spent in vast, powerful bureaucracies, which run completely independently. Have they ever been subject to an election? To public scrutiny? How about first having term limits on these bureaucrats and their programs?
Limiting the power of our elected officials, as flawed as they are, just gives even MORE power to these people.
That’s already happened. It would happen regardless of term limits or not, as long as the public demands a federal regulatory state it will continue. Also Congress likes the idea of passing decision making down to the bureaucracy. If something goes wrong they didn’t make the decision, “faceless bureaucrats did !”. They have a convenient whipping boy to blame. A term limited Congress would like it equally as well. So you need a Congress friendly to the idea of moving or minimizing that regulatory power. A term limited Congress where the members go home is best situated to minimize or shift the regulatory power an imperial Congress has no incentive to do so. The best solution is for Congress is to minimize the regulations or pass the regulations & regulatory body down to the states with money. Shifting it to the states satisfies Congress’s (politicians) desire to avoid blame - state legislatures or state bureaucrats fault ! At least at the state level the regulatory body might be more responsive.
You are always going to have some form of bureaucratic regulatory power somewhere. Why? Because the public wants it.
There is no perfect solution, just solutions off increasingly less bad !
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.