Time for Term Limits in Congress?

November 10, 2009 RSS Feed Print

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 (37)

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

leboncoin

leboncoin of AL 3:50AM February 24, 2011

We need to overhaul congress now before its too late. They still don't understand. They work for us. We don't work for them. We put them in office, we can remove them. They get fat paychecks, with a raise every year, and they cut everything for the american people. We are not allowed to vote against them or speak up to the news media. How come? Come on America! Wake up and smell the coffie before they distroy everyone. Lets clean house starting with Queen Nancy Polosi, and her sidekick Harry read.I'm unimployed, and I just found out that congress will not renew everyones unimployment checks, when when they run out. Because people like Harry do not care about american people. What do we do now? Impeach polosi, read, and obama!

Leonard Wayne Dobbert of NC 11:12PM June 21, 2010

I think we all can agree Washington D. C. has completely lost touch with the American people. The demand to throw out the all of the bums out has been heard around America for many years. The only time we have ever come close in my life, was in 1994 – 96, when Newt and the congress passed the contract with America, cut billions from the cost of welfare and we still ended up with Washington and the National debt still out of control.

What happens when individuals are elected to Congress or the Senate? One of the first things a Congressman has to do is raise money, because they are up for re-election in two years. The Senators have six years before re-election but they still have to start raising money. The second thing is the influence power has on them. You can watch them on television news programs and with in the first year you can see the change in their demeanor and how important they think they are. The need for campaign contribution for reelection brings the outside influence from lobbyist that turns away the needs of the people. Once the cycle has started, most politicians are overcome by power and greed and with the seniority system that rewards longevity and the need to get reelected increases. What we the people end up with are politicians from both parties that cannot stop spending our hard earned dollars.

How can we stop this insane cycle? Remove the politician’s need for campaign contributions. We can do this with term limits. Not multi year term limits but one six year term. Do this with the President, Senators, and Congressmen. This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our elected officials. They would need campaign contributions one time and then they could concentrate on the needs of the people. Lobbyist and their money would no longer have any effect. Longevity and Committee Chairmanships would no longer be in the equation. They would be there for six years and gone. I think this would put the needs of the people ahead of everything else.

I understand this would take a change to the Constitution for this to work and the way we can do this is with a contract that all State and Federal candidates would sign. The contract would require their support for an amendment for one six year term for all State and Federal officials. We would need to set this up so that one third of Congress and the Senate would up for election at any one time. This would take time because 26 States would have to ratify the amendment but in the end we would have America back and in control of the people.

Michael Mims of TX 9:58AM April 09, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement