Term Limits

July 13, 2010 at 9:51 am (Government, Life, Politics) (congress, house of representatives, limit, politics, senate, term, term limits)

In talking politics with my family the idea of term limits for our federal representatives came up. In general I like the idea a lot. Sadly there will be members of the House and Senate who work hard and represent their people well who will be phased out if limits are introduced, but the positive aspect of incumbents who are more invested in their own interests (such as passing a health care reform that the people did not want, and last I checked it was supposed to be a government for the people by the people) and padding their pockets being removed from power more than makes up for it. Unfortunately trying to get these limits imposed on the esteemed leadership is a bit of a problem, because they would have to vote on it, and I cannot see them voting to limit their own terms.

One idea I had was that if the American people will get their collective head out of the sand and vote out ALL incumbents in the coming election and continue to do so for the next few years we could turn over the entire representative body (mostly to current politicians toadies and flunkies, but we can hope for better right?) and make it clear that until they are limited in term we will continue to vote them all out. I like this idea, because it doesn’t add any more power to any governed organization, it reminds the politicians that We The People are in charge, and it shows that Americans are paying attention and aware of the political changes happening around and to them.

A second option is state imposed legislation that would limit the term of their federal representatives. This seems like a sound idea, however the Supreme Court has ruled against these limits in the past. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) the court ruled 5-4 that state could not impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress (later expanded to include the House of Representatives) stricter than those in the constitution. On the positive side Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent argued that “The Constitution is simply silent…And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.” (findlaw.com) The unfortunate thing is the Supreme Court is even more liberal today than it was in 1995 so the chance of winning a case about this against the president is not very likely.

A final option can be found when we look to the founding fathers.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. – Abraham Lincoln

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.

Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

The final option is to rise up as a people and overthrow the corrupt system of government and establish a new revised government that understands it is to serve the people. To serve the people is to put the interests and desires of the public  before their own, and we need to remind the House and Senate of this.