TERM LIMITS, THE CONSTITUTION, AND WHAT AMERICANS CAN DO ABOUT THE SITUATION

By R. A. Pearson

During a mid-November broadcast of the CNN Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, every news watcher’s favorite curmudgeon, Jack Cafferty, asked a question concerning congressional term limits on his Cafferty File. The responses Cafferty chose to read from the audience pointed to an overwhelming preference to term limits among American voters. Cafferty pointed out there is a proposed amendment to the Constitution imposing six-year or three term limits on Representatives and 12-year or two term limit on Senators. The bill was proposed by Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has who described it as “an historic opportunity to bring an end to an era of oppressive political oligarchy that threatens the very fabric of representative government.” Of course for this momentous constitutional change to occur members of Congress will have to literally vote themselves out of office, a job which has a good salary and many perks, and this is situation which is very unlikely to occur.

One has only to look at the recent New York City mayor’s race where term limits were changed by the City council allowing the current mayor Michael Bloomberg and themselves to run for third terms. Term limits were also on the agenda for the Republican ‘Contract With America’ during the 1993 congressional elections where Newt Gingrich and his party promised the American people a vote on the reform, but the vote failed. In Georgia, Jack Kingston, a Republican who represents the first district which includes costal Georgia, ran on term limits in the 1993 election, won, and is still in Congress. He has served nine terms.

Politicians point to a couple of facts about term limits which are true. To impose term limits will take a Constitutional admendment. Since the Constitution does not impose them they are unconstitutional until such an admendment in passed. They also point to elections, indicating the people will vote the individuals out of office when and if they become dissatisfied with the job the person is doing. However, long term service does have disadvantages to the American political process.

The obvious problem with the absence of term limits is individuals tend to stay for a long multi-terms. A week or so after his initial question on term limits, Cafferty asked a question about West Virginia’s long term Senator, and former Ku Klux Klan member, Robert Byrd, who has served 51 years in the Senate and a total of 57 years in Congress. Cafferty pointed out the initial intention of the founders of the American republic was not for long-term public service, but for short-term public service and then the individual would return to the private sector. Other individuals with long, multi terms included South Carolinia’s Strom Thurmond (47 years in the Senate), Arizona’s Carl Hayden (56 years in the House of Representatives and Senate), Georgia’s Richard B. Russell, Jr. (38 years in the Senate), and Michigan’s John Dingell (54 years in the House of Representatives). While long tenures allow individuals to gather power in Congress by obtaining important roles in their committees and parties, it can also lead to corruption, a lack of sensitivity to the needs of the American people, and simple distance from their constituents.

The lack of term limits creates the steady need for raising money to hold a long-term job. Each Congressman or woman finds him or herself running for office every two years mandating a constant need for campaign cash. The six-year cycle in the Senate is almost as bad since a Senate race is state wide and even more expensive. The constant need for cash forces the members of congress to rely on lobbyist for fundraisers, which helps lawmakers and lobbyists bond as long-term partners in fund raising and binds the members of congress to the lobbyist for information swapping on various pieces of legislation and even in the production of legislation.

Another problem with the lack of term limits is it helps create political dynasties. When even a casual observer looks across the nation it is easy to spot states where political dynasties, even oligarchies, have formed over the years. The Kennedy clan in Massachusetts, the Dodd family of Connecticut, the Udall relatives out West, the Rockefellers, the Bush family, and even the Biden family in Delaware, where a hold was placed on the Vice President’s Senate seat so his son Beau Biden could run in 2010. The basic problem with political dynasties is with the same families in control of the major political offices: new officials who would bring new ideas, new energy, and new proposals to the country are blocked from service. The country gets the same old tired policies and the same old rehashed rhetoric, political bickering, and legislative stagnation it has seen over the past 50 to 75 years.

However, to impose term limits would require a Constitutional amendment. To date all 27 amendments to the document have occurred using the two-thirds clause, a part of Article V saying, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.” As we have noted, the problem with a term limit amendment beginning in Congress is the Congresspersons would literally be risking voting themselves out of a job, and a somewhat lucrative one with excellent perks at that, if they put a term limit amendment before the country. This is just not going to happen in any existing universe.

Yet, our founding fathers, or founding persons to be politically correct, gave the American people another door to amending the Constitution. Further in Article V we find the never used three-fourths clause which states, “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.” This provision allows for state legislators to call a convention (everyday citizens) to propose an amendment or amendments to the constitution and then the state legislatures or state conventions approve amendments to the Constitution thus bypassing Congress in the process. While this way of amending the Constitution has never been used, it is a perfectly legitimately way to do so.

In a day of mass communication, with internet blogs and political web sites, cell phones, blackberries and other hand-held communication devices, and massive grass roots movements emerging across the nation such as the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement, with social networking sites such as Facebook and twitter, perhaps the American public could force a new amendment concerning term limits into the Constitution if they chose to do so. The process is there; it simply requires the political will of the American people to make it happen if term limits are the true wish of the American people. If America is to remain a government of, by, and for the people, the people must exercise all of the political and Constitutional tools within their power.

Mr. Cafferty, here in the great state of Georgia we say, “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and a Climax, Georgia, and in Climax they even have a country festival called Swine Time complete with a chitterling eating contest.” If these things are possible, the Constitution can be amended to include term limits, even without the approval of Congress!