DITTO!
Well Said!
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.
We have a way to get rid of bad Representatives. It’s called the POWER OF RECALL. If you know your Constitutional Convention, you’d know that in Madison’s Notes of Debate the delegates commented on the power of recall, which is why the House of Representatives is a two-year stint. But then, you can only get rid of your own rep.....
Term limits aren’t about your own bad representative, it’s about getting rid of other people’s Representatives that were lawfully elected and lawfully maintained. You could say that it’s anti-republican (representative government) and anti self-government. Not to mention the anti self government consequences of term limits.
It worries me that the “stellar” people at the Federalist are putting this crap out. Don’t they think before they publish?
An Article V State convention is just a way bypassing Congress to get amendments to the states for ratification.
3/4s of the states are not going to remove the Bill of Rights & 3/4s of the states are highly highly highly unlikely to pass anything dangerous. They are also unlikely to pass anything useful. Still its worth trying.
“Term limits” is no panacea for anything.
In my view it will always mean, in practical terms, throwing out the baby with the bathwater (removing many good representatives merely to follow a zero tolerance rule trying to get rid of the bad guys).
Actually I think the overall (average) quality of representatives will decline.
I think that instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater a better set of reforms would be reforms of senate and house rules.
The first rules to get rid of is any respect for “seniority” when it comes to committee and leadership positions. Having been there longer should give no representative dibs on any position.
All positions in the House or Senate and their committees should be subject to secret ballot election by all members of a caucus, committee, or the house or senate as a whole. Being on certain committees should never be automatic and there is where “term limits” should be applied, so that fresh faces on a committee get to bring fresh ideas to the proposed legislation that goes before them. It is through the committees and the long incumbency on committees that the same stale ideas keep getting promoted. The same term limits on representation on committees should apply to the staff on the committees as well. More often than not it is not the not-so-smart representatives that actually fashion a piece of legislation as it is the staff of the committees working under them, and in major legislation often with the representatives not even reviewing the finished product except in a cursory manner. It is also through the long standing seat holding on committees that representatives build power over what goes before the committees and the pay-to-play campaign donation corruption that follows with the industries or interests affected by the legislation that goes through a committee. Get rid of the permanent seat-holding allowed on the committees, and much of that problem goes away.
It is those things, more than term limits on holding a seat in Congress, that would make for great changes without throwing the baby out with the bath water - in my view.
I think “term limits” would easily remove from office many good people we would be better off keeping in office. “Term limits” is like labeling as guilty every representative, no matter how well they have served. I don’t think removing good people, even for a supposedly good reason, is ever a good thing.
Before you start saying the Founders never envisioned, try actually knowing what the Founders said at the Convention. You’d be surprised just how wise they were and how prophetically aware they were of the dangers of government. Remember: there is nothing new under the sun.
It’s the damn progressives and people coming from socialist and statist Europe that have ruined it claiming the Founders were old-timers too stupid to be aware of what came in the future.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/exhibits/
Madison’s Notes of Debates, the Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers would be a good start.
Otherwise you sound like a whiny imprudent demoract without principles lamenting the terriblely stupid Founders on one day and loving them when it is convenient on the next.
DITTO!
Well Said!
It's why Manchin should change parties....Republican or Independent...doesn't matter.
It would be interesting to see if a candidate might garner votes and win by promising to not hire anyone local in the DC area. That they and their staff will come from their district or state only. Has anybody seen this actually happened, I wonder if it might work.
to the extent that elections still matter, it would work for me!
It’s not just about government. All of our institutions are now terminally corrupt.
Just as there were no good nazis there are no good Republicans in the swamp. Not a single Republican has dropped a dime on the bipatisan nature of the 4 year long coup and election steal. Not. A. Single. One.
We already have term limits they’re called elections....problem is voters...and we can’t limit them!!!!
In a republican form of government (guaranteed by Article IV Section 4), the people have a right to choose their representatives. Term limits would abridge that right by disqualifying popular or competent people.
In a single Congressional district, the pool of qualified people is much smaller than a statewide office. If there is a person who lives in a district who has a long-standing presence and interest in that district (a family business, for instance), why shouldn't his neighbors be allowed to send him to Congress as often as they want?
That said, the Senate is totally different. I also don't think that term limits is the solution to lifelong Senators; I think that repealing the 17th amendment is the solution for the Senate. Return selection of Senators to the individual state legislatures and let them choose Senators who will advocate the state's long-term legislative interests to the rest of the states. Senators who fail to successfully align with state interests will be replaced by their home legislatures. If legislatures fail to make changes, then the people can replace their local state assemblymen and state senators who will then choose new Congressional Senators.
That's what a republican form of government looks like.
-PJ
A convention of states is needed to adjust the Constitution to address our immoral people.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lamentably, this.
Term limits should have been written into the U. S. Constitution from the beginning, e.g. no more than 8 years, and then you are done. Sure would have saved us from a lot of current problems.
Term limits should have been written into the U. S. Constitution from the beginning, e.g. no more than 8 years, and then you are done. Sure would have saved us from a lot of current problems.
Yeah, since the rats stole 2020 and will never let go, we wouldn’t want to restore self-government would we?
Percentage of Senators with >16 Year’s Tenure:
1819 – 1821: 1%
1915- 1917: 5%
1995-1996: 14%
2017-2019: 20%
The Framers' Constitution naturally limited the semi-permanent senatorial class.
That's JBS tripe.
Whatever Happened to the Articles of Confederation Part V of VII.
Now, I know you won't bother to educate yourself. But others will.
I appreciate your enthusiasm but every time you counter you make the case why we should not open the convention, rather, we need to fight them a different way until we know we have trustworthy participants. What you propose is a direct route to destruction, like jumping out of a high story window.
Just look at the cabal of anti-American governors who orchestrated the turmoil we now find ourselves fighting our way out of. Do you think for a moment the state representatives served by the same governor cabal could be trusted to follow the “strict guideline...?” That’s a rhetorical question no answer needed.
How about SEVERE punishment & permanent banishment from public service for those who don’t uphold their oath of office? Caning comes to mind.
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.
