State of The Union

Is it Time for Congressional Term Limits?

In proposing term limits for members of the Continental Congress, Thomas Jefferson stated that a limit was necessary “to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress.”  The Constitution does not include a provision for Congressional term limits, but prior to the Civil War many members of Congress in fact served only a few terms.  However, as the power and importance of the federal government has grown, the incentive to seek a career as a federal politician has also grown.

On November 10, 2009, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to limit the number of terms that a member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate.  The resolution, cosponsored by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.  As an amendment to the Constitution, passage requires a two-thirds majority approval in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states. In introducing the amendment, Senator DeMint said:

“Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians.  As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power. I have come to realize that if we want to change the policies coming out of Congress, we must change the process itself. Over the last 20 years, Washington politicians have been reelected about 90% of the time because the system is heavily tilted in favor of incumbents. If we really want to put an end to business as usual, we’ve got to have new leaders coming to Washington instead of rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down.”

Senator Coburn added:

“The best way to ensure we are truly a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, is to replace the career politicians in Washington with citizen legislators who care more about the next generation than their next election. The power of incumbency has created an almost insurmountable advantage for Washington politicians. Incumbency allows politicians to raise millions of dollars in campaign funds in exchange for earmarks. Incumbency gives Congress the power to raise money for itself – Congress just approved itself an increase of nearly $250 million from the U.S. Treasury that members will spend to promote themselves. Finally, with redistricting incumbents can choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Term limits is the best way to break this cycle.”

Proponents of term limits seek:

• More competitive elections, bringing new candidates and ideas into the process on a more regular basis and eliminating some of the inequalities that currently benefit incumbents.  In addition to generally greater name recognition, political contributions and media access, incumbents enjoy the benefits of franking (free mail to constituents) along with taxpayer-funded staff, offices and travel.  Incumbents maintain their comfortable salaries while campaigning, a benefit many challengers do not share.  State legislators routinely redraw congressional districts to benefit incumbents, and both the House and Senate maintain lawyers specifically to handle term limits litigation. 
• A more transparent government with greater access by the people, and a significant reduction in pork-barrel spending.  Freshman politicians, by their nature, are more closely connected with those who elect them, reducing the need to buy ongoing loyalties with spending sprees designed around re-election campaigns.
• Significantly reduced influence by special interest groups.  Career politicians build long-standing relationships with lobbyists which are often extremely lucrative.  These lobbying “investments” yield much smaller returns when term limits are imposed.
• An end to control of the legislative process by those who are most out of touch with their constituents and the realities outside the beltway, a situation clearly demonstrated by the debate over health care over the past twelve months.

Opponents, on the other hand, argue that:

• Term limits are undemocratic in that they restrict choice.  In fact, term limits should expand choice as the significant advantages of incumbents will largely disappear, reducing barriers to challengers.
• The most experienced legislators with the greatest understanding of the legislative process would be eliminated.  This argument presumes that freshman legislators would have no previous involvement or knowledge of the process, when in fact most elected officials have previous experience at the state level and/or through staff-level positions.  Further, no other profession requires years of on-the-job training in order to be effective in the position.  The legislature is no exception.  Term limits could attract more talent from more diverse fields as the need for years and years of experience in order to wield significant influence disappears.
• What is needed is campaign finance reform, not term limits.  In fact both are needed and one does not preclude the other.  Having career politicians presume to write campaign finance reform laws is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of access to the hen house.
• Unelected people – lobbyists, staffers and bureaucrats – would effectively run Congress while freshman legislators learn the ropes.  As noted previously, it is far more likely that relationships with lobbyists would be diminished and would not continue as new legislators come into office.  Turnover in both staffers and bureaucrats would likely increase, with greater focus directed toward legislation rather than re-election activities.   Term limits may actually provide incentive to work for reforms that transfer more power away from bureaucrats and back to Congress.
• Politicians at the end of their terms will see no political advantage to following the will of the people and every advantage to seeking personal gain.  Certainly we see little propensity today to follow the will of the people, but this argument also fails in that lobbyists lose their ability to use funds to generate long-term influence.  This again argues for campaign finance and lobbyist reform, not against term limits.

It is hardly coincidental that those primarily opposed to Congressional term limits are career politicians and special interest groups who support them.  Term limits would eliminate incumbent election advantages, reduce incentives for wasteful spending, reduce influence of special interest groups and eliminate concentrations of power with career politicians out of touch with their constituents.  The volume of legislation passed contrary to the wishes of the American people over the last several years should be ample justification to support such an amendment.

 http://www.termlimits.org/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/DeMint-Coburn-Hutchinson-intro-term-limits-constitutional-amendment-69675487.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/governmentreform/bg994.cfm

(12 votes, average: 4.58 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Big Brother Tracks Your Cell Phone

Technology can be a wonderful thing. Over the years, it has given us the automobile, the airplane, the personal computer, and the cellular phone, perhaps the most versatile device each of us uses today. Cellular technology has advanced so much that, in emergencies, we can simply dial 911, whereupon the emergency dispatcher can locate us and direct emergency services right to us. But now, as it is wont to do, government has found yet another way to intrude in our lives, further eroding our constitutionally protected right to privacy. (more…)

Massachusetts Takes Center Stage

On January 19, 2010, Massachusetts may find itself at the forefront of a political revolution. On that date, voters will go to the polls to select the permanent occupant of the senate seat held by Edward Kennedy for more than 40 years. What makes that a revolutionary moment is the fact that Martha Coakley, the Democrat candidate, could well lose the election, which would indeed be a stunning upset, given Massachusetts’ political climate. In an unsettling turn of events, however, there is a suggestion that, if Republican Scott Brown manages to pull of such an upset, the Senate may refuse to seat him, fearing–rightly–that he would break the Democrats’ super-majority and kill the health care reform bill. (more…)

The Travesty of Amendment XIV

In drafting the Constitution of the United States, its framers understood that the fledgling republic they created would grow and mature and that, as it did so, the Constitution might require amendment to accommodate the changes that came about as a result. To that end, Article V spelled out the requirements for amending it:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Today, we know that the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times. Each amendment served to right a problem of the day. That is, generally, the issue a particular amendment sought to address was current; it was not intended to correct for a situation that might occur fifty years down the road. For example, the first ten, the Bill of Rights, were included because many of the anti-Federalists were not convinced that the Constitution itself was enough to protect what they considered essential liberties, nor were they convinced that the newly-created federal government would forever constrain itself to the Constitution’s boundaries. If it had not been clear from the outset that the Constitution created a small federal government of limited powers, these amendments–the tenth in particular–made it so. Subsequent amendments addressed the issues of their day, such as the thirteenth, which abolished slavery, and the twenty-second, which set presidential term limits. (more…)

Are You Mad as Hell?

The Senate today passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill, sending it on to the White House for what will surely result in President Obama’s signature, all but securing for us, our children and grandchildren a lifetime of increasingly higher taxes to pay down Washington’s excesses.  This latest spending bill out of the way, our elected officials–those who are supposed to serve us, not rule over us–are set to start debate afresh on several other hot-button issues.  Most notable among those are health care and, in light of Obama’s planned visit to the global warming summit, “cap ‘n tax.”

As the debate intensifies, the only constant is how little respect our employees actually show us.  Despite significant, and growing, opposition to ObamaCare (even more than HillaryCare, by some estimates), to listen to the Washington political elite is to listen to those who have no connection to regular, work-a-day Americans.  Our Congress today pays virtually no heed to our wishes, as they enact legislation, willy-nilly, that will do nothing to improve the quality of our lives, but will almost certainly result in a much heavier tax burden on all of us, all while vastly expanded regulatory authority will extend the federal government’s reach into virtually every aspect of our lives.  This will necessarily result in the further reduction of states’ powers, along with the curtailment of our individual liberties, all addressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Are you mad as hell?  If you’re not, you should be.  If you are, let’s hear why, along with your ideas on how to combat–and reverse–the accelerating federal “creep”.

The Constitution: What’s It Mean?

The last century has seen the unbridled growth of the federal government, both in size and scope. Most alarming is the federal government’s encroachment on the powers of the individual states, slowly but inexorably concentrating all power into what has morphed into a national, rather than federal, government. Some say it is the natural progression of things, or that the later writings of the Framers make clear that was the intent all along; others say that our Constitution does not permit what has happened. Obviously, there are varied opinions on just what the Constitution means, and it’s worth exploring that in more detail.

To start off, let’s ask a simple question. Is it conceivable that, having just fought a war to win their independence and freedom, the Framers would then turn right around and recreate the very same sort of government they fought so long and hard to throw off? (more…)

A First Step?

Thomas Jefferson believed that the states had the right and the obligation interpose themselves if the federal government overstepped its bounds. Indeed, he also believed that they could nullify federal law if it was found to be unconstitutional, and that they could secede from the union. In this video, Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, discusses the forgotten powers of the states with Judge Andrew Napolitano.

(more…)

Your Rights, Trampled by … the Commerce Clause?

Whether you like the man or not, Judge Andrew Napolitano hits the nail on the head as he describes how government is trampling your rights under the guise of the Constitution’s commerce clause.

(more…)

The Gipper

I have noticed over the last couple of weeks on this site the increased mention of former President Ronald Reagan and the negative impacts of his economic policies on various aspects of the United States economy. I was a 24 year old young man when Reagan was elected, and remember very well the economic conditions that were at play when he was elected. So I came to an agreement with Mr. Galt that I would do a piece on the effects of the Reagan tax policies. I made a commitment to myself to keep my personal opinions out of the piece, and to instead focus on the numbers involved. I wanted to endeavor to put together an article that was as honest as I could. I did not wish to make it a slanted, one sided article because I believed I owed that to you all. As I have come to be associated with you all there is an underlying theme, we all care about our Country a great deal. I am going to focus on four central themes, 1) The revenue generation of the Reagan tax cuts, 2) the effects on the manufacturing sector of our economy, 3) the generation of wealth the policies created and 4) the effects on the Federal deficit. (more…)

Barrack Hussein Obama: President or Just ‘Present’?

As a state senator in Illinois, Barrack Hussein Obama used the ‘present’ vote as a protest to bills he felt were drafted unconstitutionally or were part of a broader legislative strategy, according to his aides and allies. In fact, he voted “present,” nearly 130 times. Many times, the decision to vote ‘present’ is, in fact, a way to sidestep tough decisions that could be politically damaging. In this way, they can maintain ambiguity on the tough issues (on the other hand, since a ‘present’ vote is counted as a ‘no’ in Illinois, it’s also a convenient way to vote no). This is typical of many politicians.

What happens, though, when a tough decision must be made and the ‘present’ option is not available? (more…)