Citizens
of the United States often complain that their Congressional representatives
and senators focus on ensuring continual reelection over effectively governing
the nation. Desire to maintain political
power discourages members of Congress from tackling politically sensitive and
often times vitally important issues, resulting in the crippling gridlock we
have experienced over the past decade. While
it seems like an easy fix to this problem is to create term limits for
representatives and senators, effecting change in this area is not as easy as
it sounds.
One proposed solution to the problem
is a constitutional amendment limiting the amount of time individuals can serve
in the House and in the Senate. Jim DeMint,
a former Republican senator from South Carolina and a prominent figure in the
Tea Party movement, proposed an amendment in 2009 which would limit
representatives to three terms (six years) and senators to two terms (twelve
years). The proposed amendment went to
the Senate Judiciary committee where, to the surprise of nobody, it never saw
the light of day.
Article V of the Constitution
outlines two possible ways for the nation to amend the document. Supposing it had made it through the
committee, these two methods pose the primary stumbling block for DeMint’s
plan. The first requires two-thirds of
both the House (291 representatives) and the Senate (67 senators) to approve
the proposed amendment, which then goes out to the states, three-fourths (38
states) of which must approve it. The
other method bypasses Congress all together by allowing for two-thirds (34
states) of the states to call for a constitutional convention to propose new
amendments. The states, however, have
never employed the latter method.
The naïve may think that
members of Congress would support Senator DeMint’s amendment because it would
allow them to focus on governing instead of constantly worrying about making a
mistake which would result in the death of their political career; such a
thought, however, ignores a defining characteristic of humanity. To paraphrase Aung San Suu Kyi, it is not the
possession of power but the fear of losing power which corrupts people. A quick examination of the initial actions of
usurpers throughout history, from Caesar to Hitler, confirms this sentiment. Once these despots obtained supreme power,
their first acts were not to shower themselves with wealth, but to centralize
power and weaken institutions which could threaten their iron grip on society.
With a federal solution
unlikely, many states have attempted to take it upon themselves to fix the
problem. This avenue has been
unsuccessful as well, but for a different reason. In the early 1990s, activists across the
nation urged states to pass laws which limited the amount of terms its
representatives and senators could serve in Washington. Most of these laws came in the form of
blocking ballot access to individuals who had already served a certain number
of years in the House or Senate, although the candidate could continue to
receive votes via write-ins. After these
laws passed in twenty-three states, politicians, lead by then-Arkansas
Representative Ray Thornton, brought a challenge against them to the U.S.
Supreme Court. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Court ruled the laws
unconstitutional. It is worth noting
that the justices who struck the term limit laws are the typically liberal
justices, proving that neither judicial ideology is always in the right.
The challenge to the
laws came out of Article I of the Constitution which outlines the formation and
powers of Congress. Sections 2 and 3 of
the article discuss the composition of the House and the Senate, including the
requirements representatives and senators must meet. According to the Section 2, a representative
must be over the age of twenty-five, a citizen for at least seven years, and
must live in the state which elected him or her. Section 3 states that a senator must be at
least thirty years old, a citizen for nine years, and an inhabitant of the
state which he or she serves. In Thornton the Court firmly established
that these requirements are the only permissible restrictions on the
eligibility of Americans to serve in Congress.
While it is not completely
clear how much impact the lack of term limits has had upon the gridlock evident
in Congress over the past few years, it is a possibility that they could help
grease the gears of governance. An
aspect of contemporary politics which stands in the way of efficient and
effective government is the increasing polarization of both parties. As Democrats become more liberal and
Republicans become more conservative, their ability to reach compromises
decreases. Term limits, however, could mitigate
this polarization. Limits would maintain
a steady rotation of representatives and senators, possibly reducing the grip highly
partisan figures maintain over their fellow party members.
Despite the lack of success the movement for term limits has had the past
two decades, term limit activists must continue to fight the ability for
individuals to maintain offices on Independence Avenue and Constitution Avenue
for decades. When the same
representatives and senators continually win reelection while accomplishing no substantial
legislative innovations or breakthroughs they have less incentive to work for
hard goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment