Confronting Unlimited Government - Lessons from the Term Limits Movement
Some excerpts:
By 1995, 23 states had adopted term limits for their Members of Congress, but in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court struck down these laws, arguing that they added additional qualifications for service in the House of Representatives that were contrary to Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This shifted the strategy of the movement from laws passed by state legislatures to Congress and a potential constitutional amendment.
Because many in both parties opposed term limits, the push for a constitutional amendment proved futile, but the measures imposing term limits on state legislatures remained in effect. We can therefore judge the results of term limits by how they have operated in practice at the state level to...
Ultimately, while the term-limits movement was very successful both in reducing the length of time that state legislators serve in office and in rallying the public against runaway government spending and other ills that plague modern government, it did not accomplish its broader political goals of reducing spending and restoring deliberation. The reason for this failure is that runaway spending and the lack of deliberation are only symptoms of a deeper, systemic problem: the rise of the modern bureaucracy and expansion of the administrative state.
The massive expansion of government in the early 20th century and the establishment of bureaucracies in which scientific experts make policy concerning complex issues fostered careerism among Members of Congress. More power made congressional offices more attractive, and the difficulty of dealing with bureaucratic experts required legislators to have more experience to be successful. At the same time, the party system that allowed for greater rotation in office was undermined. These developments created the problem that the term-limits movement confronted.
I used to be a Term Limits cheerleader, but for now, until the size of government is drastically reduced...I am against them.
“The reason for this failure is that runaway spending and the lack of deliberation are only symptoms of a deeper, systemic problem: the rise of the modern bureaucracy and expansion of the administrative state.”
And your comment:
“I used to be a Term Limits cheerleader, but for now, until the size of government is drastically reduced...I am against them.”
+++++++++++++++++
I think the non-success is a combination of not being able to address the federal term limits first, and *that* the result of the RATS being in control of the fed apparatchiks. In effect, those 23 states were doing 'unilateral' term limits - and that won't work. They fought against all their states public unions, big spenders AND the federal RAT big spenders. Not a recipe to reduce spending.
We need to succeed in a Constitutional amendment. Until that happens, I agree, I don't favor this at the federal or state level unilaterally.