Time for Term Limits in Congress?

November 10, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (40)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

In the early '90s the Republican march to majority included the idea that it was time to impose term limits on members of the U.S. House and Senate. A part of the Contract with America, term limits died thanks in part to a disagreement among its supporters over just what those terms should be.

It also didn't help the cause that those who followed Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey as leaders of the House GOP determined that voluntarily ceding power to other people might not be the most prudent of ideas, especially after the party had spent 40 years in the political wilderness.

Tuesday a group of U.S. Senators, led by South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint, attempted to bring the issue back to life. DeMint, along with co-sponsors Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Sam Brownback of Kansas, introduced a constitutional amendment that would apply term limits to all members of Congress. Under their plan, members of the House of Representatives would be limited to three consecutive two-year terms in office and Senators to two, six-year terms.

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a release. "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."

Arguing that the only way to change the policies coming out of Washington is to change the process, DeMint and the others have proposed a most radical step, one that strikes directly at the heart of the power structure inside the national capital but one that is consistent with the voter outrage directed at the big-spending, grow the government initiatives coming out of the White House and the Reid-Pelosi Congress.

"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," DeMint said.

As a constitutional amendment, the DeMint-led initiative would need to be approved by two-thirds of the U.S. House and by an identical percentage of senators before being sent to the states for ratification, where three-quarters would have to approve before it could become part of the U.S. Constitution.

Tags:
Congress

Reader Comments Read all comments (40)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

2 term is a great idea some of these guys have been in office 50 years, they get perks galore we have some extremly smart graduats with masters and doctorates in political science. concress terms should be based on performance like we poor slobs. reps. should have their term adjusted in 2 year increments, they promise us the moon then we ignorant americans believe that hype and re- elect them. if every 2 years they are evualated on their performance and kept their word on their election , if not give these people a chance these grads are being

joseph of FL 6:46PM January 21, 2013

Lets go taxpayer we can do it their is more of us then them.they keep taking from us and we have no say so.lets start a petition make term limits,no work no pay just like a normal person.earn and pay for your benefits like we do.lets see who is on welfare congress or the people.we pay them they shouldnt get free healthcare.we all have to pay for are own with are paychecks.start now with a petition so they understand we the people have had enough already.i dont mind paying taxes for the people that count like teachers,firemen,veterans.they do great deeds for are country

liz wetzstein of ND 1:11PM September 28, 2012

Size limit: In the 19th Century, the Congress grew along with the nation. In 1911, however, Progressive reformers finally capped the house at 435 seeking to "improve" the quality of representation by diluting the growing immigrant vote. Except for tiny fluctuations reflecting the admission of new states, the number has stayed the same. That's a 100-year freeze, imposed by statute not by the Constitution. ** the result is incredibly lessened representation of ordinary people, and concentration and leverage for professional lobbyers. Doubling the number of house representatives would help *a lot* in cleaning up the congress, by making it twice as hard for the lobbyist to "buy them all". Doubling the number of congressional representatives would take away the silly and desperate discussions about term limits & campain funding limits -- these are no longer needed, once the simple threshold of one congressman to 500,000 constituents is achieved. This would change the congress nature of "for millioneers by millioneers" selective process, towards more democratic "cast your vote for change".

anon 5:11AM September 23, 2012

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement