WisdomWorld

In a recent discussion, term limits came up as a topic, and as usual, I took a side. Personally, I am against Congressional term limits, and I said so. I believe they are nothing more than an attempt by one group of people to dictate to another group of people who they can, or more accurately in this case, can’t vote for. As is often the case when I defend my position against Congressional term limits, it was pointed out in the discussion that the President is limited to two terms. I was asked, as an opponent of Congressional term limits, if I also opposed Presidential term limits. The answer is, no, I don’t.  On the surface, the dichotomy between my two perspectives on term limits for the separate branches of federal government may look hypocritical at best, but to understand my viewpoint, a more in depth discussion about the nature of the elected offices is necessary.

First, as we all know, the members of the House of Representatives are considered to be the closest representatives to the people. This is evidenced by both the fact that they are subject to election every two years, and the fact that they typically represent more specific groups of people (districts). They are meant to be close and well known to those they represent.  As much as Nancy Pelosi makes me cringe, she is sadly quite illustrative of the people she represents in her home district (San Francisco, CA). I am more concerned that Democrats representing all the other districts in the nation would see fit to elect her their leader and put her in line for Presidential ascension. Term limits won’t protect us from that kind of stupidity, especially since her power has more to do with her success at getting supporters elected to key seats around the nation — thereby taking majority control of the House, and majority control of the House Democratic Caucus at the same time — than any power that comes from longtime entrenchment. As a result of this direct representation, I stand by my position against term limits on members of the House.

The Senate started a little differently. They began as appointed representatives of the states, chosen by each state’s legislature, and not by popular vote. It wasn’t until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1917 that Senators were elected by popular vote of the people, and became a body directly representative of the people. I won’t into detail about the corruption that spurred the change (just think of Governor Blagojevich and his attempt to sell Illinois’ open Senate seat multiplied by 96), but the 17th amendment clarifies their role as direct representatives of the people of their respective states. Their six year terms are meant to give them a little more insulation from mob rule, and create a little bit of stability in the government, even when the tides of populist opinion shift quickly. Since Senators are also direct representatives of the people, I stand by my position against term limits on their elections, also.

The President, however, is a different animal. The Constitution specifically creates a process of election for the President that removes him from a position of being a direct representative of the people. The Constitution clearly defines his role as that of The President of the United States. As much as we often like to think of him as such, he is not The President of the People of the United States. It might seem inconsequential, but it is an important distinction. Like Senators had been until 1917, the President is not elected by the people, but by representatives of the individual states, as determined by their respective legislatures. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. Presidents had always abided by George Washington’s unwritten rule that no President should serve more than two terms. FDR’s successful bid for four terms was enough to spur the adoption of the 22nd amendment, which limited future Presidents to just two terms. There were many underlying reasons for the amendment, but primary among them was to protect the nation from the future possibility that one man could hold the Presidency for so long that his individual power would grow to supersede that of the balanced government as a whole. Examples of the dangers of such power building at the executive level are abundant throughout the world. Since the President, as dictated by the Constitution, is not a direct representative of the people, and since the danger of allowing one man to stay in a such a unique position of power for too long is all to real, I support the term limits placed on the office by the 22nd amendment.

The framers of the Constitution weren’t perfect and they obviously didn’t think of everything. This is evidenced by the fact that we have 17 amendments beyond the Bill of Rights. But they outlined rules in the Constitution that allowed the members of each house to set rules for their members and punish the members who break those rules. There are systems in place to prevent corruption among our directly elected representatives. They are subject to both the rules of membership of their respective houses, and the laws of the land that are enforced by the executive branch and under the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not a perfect system but, when used correctly, it is an effective system.  The voters and citizens of the United States are best served by making sure that our elected representatives follow the rules already set forth, and most of all by making sure that the most qualified representatives are sent to Washington every two and six years. Term limits for those representatives would merely hobble the voters ability to make those decisions.

The other thing term limits won’t do is protect the rest of the nation from representatives from districts like San Francisco, and states like Nevada. Pelosi and Reid are quite illustrative of the people they represent. If they were forced out by term limits, the voters from those districts would send someone with another face, with another name, but with the same radical ideologies to serve in their place.

We don’t have a right to be protected from the will of an individual district or state, except as already outlined by the Constitution, and we don’t have the right to tell the people of other districts and states who they can and can’t have as their elected representatives. It is much more important, if you ask me, that we find a way to protect the rights of individual states from the will of the federal government. That is where the real battle is.

Related posts:

1. Education Reform – Nationally, Locally and Individually President Obama recently commented that the reason American K-12 education is falling behind other industrialized nations is because kids don’t...