Congressional Term Limits

"The dissonance between the people and their leaders on term limits is deafening," said Michael Kramer in 1995 before a Senate subcommittee on the Constitution. Edward H. Crane, president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization, used this quote to illustrate how Congress was, and still is, out of touch with its constituents with regard to limiting their own tenure in office.

The Republican majority in the legislature has held more or less strong since their sweep to power in 1994, excluding the 107th Senate. The beginning of their legislative reign was marked by the "Contract with America," a lawmaking plan including congressional term limits, finally resulting in a defeated Constitutional Amendment.

Term limits again must be brought to the forefront of the national agenda. Too often, politicians stay in office as long as they can, under the assumption that they are more experienced and better suited to dealing with the complexities of American bureaucracy. It is apparent that incumbency's advantage is stifling competition. According to John Armor's 1994 book, "Why Term Limits," corporate political action committees donate 71.7 percent of their contributions toward incumbents, realizing that likely power and influence lies with them.

Corporations know, people know, and members of Congress know that legislative term limits are necessary if American republican democracy is to adapt to the changing political climate of the 21st century. Crane's testimony included statistics from a Luntz poll, which concluded that 80 percent of people support the concept of congressional term limits. Those who support this idea actually favor stricter limits by a wide margin.

According to the Washington Post, 18 states have already instituted term limits for their state legislatures, an action upheld by the Supreme Court. Term limits on the federal level is the next logical step in the progression toward achieving modern day popular sovereignty.

Opponents of such a measure will argue that for every freeloading congressperson, there is an experienced, well-respected, effective legislator. To remove one through limitation would thus remove the other. While that is true, a good legislator does not have to disappear upon the completion of his or her public service. Examples set by former politicians like former president Jimmy Carter, recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, can serve as role models for members of Congress yearning for more service opportunities once leaving office.

Term limits may also attract younger politicians looking for more experience in federal legislation, bureaucracy and in dealing with the government. Such politicians would leave their terms of service with experience that would be invaluable to prospective employers, and benefit the public as a result. Who better to deal with law in the public sector than a lawyer who once served a term or two as a member of Congress?

Elected politics should not be a career. Politics should be a supplement to an educated person's career in a field like law or business. Congress was designed for representation, and a politician that spends decades in Washington cannot truly be up to date with grassroots issues to meet the representational needs of his or her constituency.

The spirit of American politics was forged in the idea that a dedicated patriot left home and did his or her public service, eventually retreating after a short time to private life. Politicians have forgotten the essence of this democracy, and if they cannot remember that, then the people must speak up and demand a constitutional amendment to curb this abuse.

The president of the United States was limited to two terms with the 22nd Amendment in 1951 because Congress believed that Franklin Roosevelt had abused George Washington's two-term precedent. Now, it is Congress' turn to recognize its own abuses, and fifty years later, rectify said abuses.