I’ve said this for a long time, but Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina wants to make it a reality. From today’s edition of his “Freedomcast” (h/t NetRightNation):
Hello again. I’m Senator Jim DeMint, and this is Freedomcast for October 22, 2009.
You know, the longer I stay in Washington, the more I have come to realize that the problem in the federal government isn’t just the people… it’s the process.
The system itself is so much more powerful than either party or interest group, let alone one president or congressional leader.
In Washington, the rules of the game are rigged — in favor of bigger government, higher taxes, more debt, and the time-honored system of political back-scratching of “go along to get along.”
Fifteen years ago, Republicans — who had been out of power in Congress for forty years – made term limits a centerpiece of their “Contract with America” agenda.
The term limits constitutional amendment ultimately failed, in part because so many new reform-minded congressmen imposed term limits on themselves. After six or eight years, these members voluntarily went home, leaving behind those Republicans and Democrats who fully intended to make a career inside the beltway.
The fact is, party doesn’t matter when it comes to reform. If you want to change the policies, you have to change the process.
That’s why in the next few weeks I will introduce a new constitutional amendment to limit members of the House of Representatives to three terms (which is six years), and members of the Senate to two terms (which is twelve years).
As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power.
Since all that power is going to disappear in a few years, anyway, term-limited legislators will be far less likely to make compromises with the system.
Opponents of term limits say that the nation needs wise and seasoned leaders to lead the nation through crises and find consensus on difficult issues.
Well, that’s exactly what we’ve got now… How do you think it’s working out for us?
It wasn’t the “people” who gave us a 12-trillion dollar debt, trillion-dollar deficits, 100-trillion-dollar long term shortfall in Social Security and Medicare, the Wall Street and auto bailouts, and the health care takeover.
It was those wise and seasoned leaders, who enjoy lives of privilege almost wholly immune from the consequences of their policy failures.
Term limits are not enough, of course. I hope my amendment will eventually be ratified, and then followed by other structural reforms to make our public institutions more transparent and accountable.
But term limits are a good start. Because if we really want reform, we all know it’s not enough just to change the congressmen – we have to change Congress itself.
Thanks for checking in. This is Freedomcast, and I’m Jim DeMint.
Obviously the question will be asked about DeMint’s electoral situation, and he will be up for re-election in 2010. If he follows his own example he would not run again in 2016 but it’s worth pointing out he indeed served three terms in the House before stepping up to the Senate. (DeMint did not hold elective office in South Carolina prior to his running for the House according to his Wikipedia bio.)
In my study of history, the Founding Fathers expected people who wished to represent us in the House would come out of the private sector, serve a short time in Washington, and return home to resume their life. The Senate was thought to be somewhat more of a long-term proposition (as Senators were selected by state legislatures until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913), but in either case it’s highly doubtful those who created our form of government were expecting lifelong politicians on the order of Senator Robert Byrd or Rep. John Dingell, both of whom have served since the 1950’s.
Moreover, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, limits Presidential tenure to 10 years or two full terms (if a sitting Vice-President takes over in the latter half of an unexpired term, he or she may run for two full terms after taking office.) So there is now a precedent for limiting terms.
The obvious argument against DeMint is that limiting terms limits the choices available at the ballot box and strips Congress of experienced politicians who know the ropes. I’m not going to deny that some good politicians may get term-limited out assuming the DeMint amendment passes, but there are just so many bad apples who continually fool their electorate into sending them back time after time that this abuse of the privilege makes punishment worthwhile. Truly, no one who is worth sending to Washington would want to spend decades there anyway.
Unsurprisingly, the biggest hurdle to DeMint’s proposal is getting the 2/3 majority of each house of Congress to agree with DeMint. While a reasonable number of Republicans would support the bill – the Senator points out this was a provision of the GOP’s “Contract With America” in 1994 – the slim chance majority Democrats would have anything to do with this makes the chance this will be sent to the states from this Congress practically nil.
But, should DeMint be re-elected in 2010 and should thoughtful voters do their job and put term limits of their own on those who would be obstacles to the passage of the DeMint proposal, there’s an outside chance we could see such an amendment be sent to states for ratification in the next two years. Then the fight will be taken to each of the 50 state capitals, with 38 states needing to ratify the DeMint amendment for eventual inclusion in the Constitution.
Unlike a lot of amendments already enacted (such as the Tenth), this one wouldn’t be so easily ignored.
