Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump called this week for term limits for congressional members as part of his pledge “to drain the swamp.” He would limit members of the House of Representatives to a maximum of six years and limit Senators to 12 years in office. I have long opposed such term limits as curtailing the power of voters to choose their own leaders while undermining the effectiveness of Congress, particularly in the House.
I served for a short time as the constitutional consultation to the Florida House of Representatives, which was subject to such term limits. The experience deepened my opposition to term limits. Most members have little knowledge or experience in governing. The result is that lobbyists play a dominant role in the drafting and passing of legislation. As soon as a member gathers experience, they have to leave. Even when a member is successful and popular, his or her constituents are denied the ability to keep their representative.
While Trump insists that “Decades of special interests, decades of failure must come to an end,” term limits increase the power of special interests and lobbyists who hold the experience in crafting and passing legislation. More importantly, it should be up to the voters whether a member stays or goes as a matter of representative democracy. These arguments have been made in campaigns against incumbents. I have previously argued argued that there are reforms that would help loosen the grip of incumbents. These reforms included but were not limited to the following:
Remove barriers to third parties. Independent and third-party candidates currently face an array of barriers, including registration rules and petition requirements, that should be removed. Moreover, we should require a federally funded electronic forum for qualified federal candidates to post their positions and material for voters. And in races for national office, all candidates on the ballot in the general election should submit to a minimum of three (for Congress) or five (for the presidency) debates that would be funded and made publicly available by the government.
End the practice of gerrymandering. We need a constitutional amendment requiring uniformity in districts to end gerrymandering, in which politicians distort the shape of districts to link pockets of Democratic or Republican voters. Districts should have geographic continuity, and should be established by a standard formula applied by an independent federal agency.
Change the primary system. The principal reason incumbents are returned to power is that voters have little choice in the general election. Incumbents tend to control their primaries, and in many districts electing the candidate of the opposing party is not an option. Under one alternative system that could be mandated in a constitutional amendment for all states, the two top vote-getters would go into the general election regardless of their party. If both of the top candidates are Republican or Democratic, so be it. All primaries would be open to allow voters to cast their ballots for any candidate appearing in the primary.
The change of the primary system would have particular impact on incumbents but actually increase the voice rather than limit the power of voters.
I also fail to see why House members would be limited to only six years as opposed to twelve years — the same as the Senate. Obviously, the terms reflect three terms under each of the houses but it should be the years of service not the terms that drive such limits. Six years is very little time for a House member who has to campaign heavily and continually for the first couple terms. That leaves little time to develop expertise and experience in actual government. Even if one were to support term limits, these specific limits are problematic in my view.
Despite my disagreement on term limits, some of Trump’s other suggestions would be helpful. He proposed re-instituted a ban to prevent Executive Branch officials from lobbying the government for five years after they leave government service and a similar five year ban for members and their staff. That would be an improvement.
Since we have term limits on the presidency, why not on both houses of Congress AND the Supreme Court; say a maximum of 12 years in either house, senate, or supreme court?
It doesn’t seem to have hurt the presidency to have term limits, so why have an imperial legislative or court?
So, JT are you against term limits for President? If it is good for 1 branch, why not the others? I personally love the idea of congress having to change and not being able to do anything. We do not become a more free society when they are “working” on new/more laws that usually result in the lose of personal freedoms.
Or, I might add, all Congress can do is limit our freedom, take our money, or our lives. We’re much ‘freer’ when Congress is not in session. Didn’t Will Rogers say something like this?
No, that’s not all Congress can do and the federal government isn’t running hit squads.
Yes, I wish there was a “Do Nothing” party where candidates platform is to promise if elected, they will do nothing and enforce the already to many freedom taking laws we have.
The Tea Party IS the “Do Nothing” party. They went to Washington to make sure nothing much happened, and they have largely succeeded. Now I’m waiting for someone to say, “Why don’t we just disband the Federal Government and let all the states fly in parallel formation? Bring back the Articles of Confederation! (Be sure to have your passport when you travel from one state to the next …..)
There are 3 dozen major reforms you can enact (e.g. eliminating HUD or enacting a general tax reform) which reduce excess federal intervention without coming anywhere near dismantling the federal government. Partisan Democrats think only in caricatures.
Term limits are supposed to be carried out by an informed electorate that know when their representatives fail to honor their oath of office. If that were the case, when Congress has an approval rating in the single digits, it should not correspond to an incumbent success rate of 90%. So is it the elected that need term limits or do we need a change in qualifying the electors? We require new citizens take a civics test to be eligible to vote, why is that? We don’t require natural born citizens to take the same test, If we do not implement some form of civics literacy requirement in this process then it won’t matter how long these people sit in office.
Repealing the 17th amendment would also unhinge the power the federal government has amassed over the last 100 years.
Repealing the 17th Amendment would change the common skill set of Senators. It’s currently composed of people adept at fundraising and mounting publicity campaigns. In the future, it would be composed of people who knew how to build relationships in legislative bodies (or persuade someone to buy a legislative body).
Darren, Superb comment.
Autumn..PAGING AUTUMN! Milo is scheduled to speak @ GWU, JT’s employer. And, one of JT’s colleagues, Professor Banzhaf, is championing Milo’s right to be heard. Of course, the liberal fascists want him banned.
Damn, thanks for the heads up Nick! We’ll see if GW allows free speech. Didn’t they recently have a student take down a Palestine flag?
The poster child for “the lack of substance” in a politician would be the vapid, pretty boy, French Canadian leading Canada.
That’s why a lot of Canadians want Trump. Trudeau is a useless sycophant.
Remove barriers to third parties. Independent and third-party candidates currently face an array of barriers, including registration rules and petition requirements, that should be removed.
For pity’s sake. The real barrier to 3d parties in this country (apart from cultural factors you cannot manipulate) is the use of 1st past the post tabulation in single-member district contests. Replace that with ordinal balloting and the alternate vote, and you’ll remove the most salient inhibition on voting 3d party.
The most important and serious issue regarding the US system of government is the lack of substance to be found in its participants. The focus should be on ways to eliminate the ‘entertainment’ aspect by abolishing private concentrated funding of candidates/puppets. Our system is an oligarchy, not a democracy, but we tout constantly that democracy was invented in 1776 and we’re number one. Not true; this problem between the I and the We has been going on for thousands of years. The Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, and others developed constitutions, elected and appointed systems of leadership, as well as rule by tyrants. America has taken this age old experiment and perverted it into a sideshow.
Trump illustrates this more than anyone. The great entertainer simply relied on entertaining, fear mongering, and finger pointing. He has probably said the least of any candidate in history. If the ‘substance’ coming from a candidate were to be limited to the issues and the issues only then perhaps the voters would evolve into more than an ignorant mob ticked off by illusion. Trump said it better than anyone, “You don’t sell the property, you sell the illusion.” Americans are not number one when it comes to democracy.
Pretty good points. At least Trump has had to participate in deals, which, if you don’t have to hustle to create your own income, doesn’t mean much to you. You should also add our current President to your criticism. Not a lot going for him either. Maybe that is why he doesn’t seem to understand he presence on the world stage. He wears his arrogance in the form of a coat that was handed to him.
This perverted version of democracy in America brings us candidates without the issues but with the sizzle. Imagine if in order to contribute you had to be registered and the limit was $100.00. Imagine if the only transfer of substance from the candidate to the registered voter was via a controlled system designed around the issues, (issues submitted from registered voters). Imagine if the ‘dog and pony show’ aspects were eliminated. Imagine if a voter actually had to think about voting instead of looking to see who would get in the best zingers. Almost all if not all of our problems stem from our missing the point. Read the papers and you will see that the point is almost completely hidden behind the most disgusting carnival/circus imaginable. We look like fools to the rest of the world because we are fools.
That would certainly help, but not cure the problem. Good ol’ Jeb had the blessing of the establishment and big money, and it WAS NOT a wrap for him, as I and pretty much everyone else thought. So maybe there is a remaining avenue for voter anger to influence things. The people I talk to generally do not like Trump, but are angry and want him to change things. At least mix up the duopoly.
The saying, “we elect the government we deserve” may be the ultimate prevailing factor in all of this.
Four more years!
Four more years!
Professor Turley:
I would like to make a correction in your post. You wrote:
“I also fail to see why House members would be limited to only six years as opposed to twelve years — the same as the Senate. Obviously, the terms reflect three terms under each of the houses but it should be the years of service not the terms that drive such limits.”
However, twelve years in the Senate is actually two terms not three (see U.S. CONST. Art. 1, sec. 3, cl. 1), therefore the term limits proposed by Mr. Trump would be three terms for House Members and two terms for Senators–not the same for each house as you indicated.
It’s impossible now to get a choice in a primary, the Dems in this primary denied grassroots support for Bernie, as was reported in the media.
The same thing happened to Ron Paul on the Rep side, his delegates were not allowed to represent him at the Republican convention in Florida.
the 1% seems to have a stranglehold on both main isles of the system.
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
Thomas Paine
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” George Washington
“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. “- James Madison
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government,
our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
Samuel Adams, 1776
“We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.” (Alexander Hamilton)
“The powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people.”- James Madison
“The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.”
Thomas Jefferson 1807
In theory, a popular politician would move from rep to Senate after 6 years. That is 18 years in Congress
(1) End popular election of the Senate. Have caucuses of the House elect the Senate, with state governers breaking ties. To be eligible to sit in the Senate, you;’d have to be a sitting member of the House or to have been eligible to have run for the House in the most recent federal election.
(2) Functionally differentiate the House and Senate. The House would be responsible for legislation, budgetry, and the ratification of certain executive actions or proposals. The Senate would be responsible for general oversight and vetting and re-composing proposed administrative rules and regulations. The president would be responsible for negotiating treaties and proposing certain actions (e.g a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal), for drafting administrative rules consequent to session laws, and for appointing the members of regulatory commissions.
(3) Limit the appointments requiring advice and consent to officials outside the executive branch, to inspectors-general, and to the members of commissions and boards serving fixed terms. Devolve advice and consent functions for federal district judges and us attorneys on state legislatures (and, perhaps, devolve the nominating power onto state governors). Invest the House of Representatives with advice and consent functions regarding the rest.
(4) Extend congressional terms to four years, but limit tenure to 10 years in any bloc of 12, prohibit standing for election if you cannot lawfully complete the term for that reason, have a lower age limit of 39 to stand for election, and require mandatory retirement if you’re due to be past your 72d birthday when your term ends.
I might add however that there is no possibility given the current political environment in this country that such an amendment will pass. Politicians will never give up their gravy train willingly.
Pitchforks??
Article V. That’s what it’s for. Term limits have passed on the state level, btw.
In this case I disagree nearly completely with our host. An impetus to introducing term limits is to prevent concentrations of power that is wielded by too few for too long of time. Ending the practice of having politicians with lifelong employment as politicians allows for better opportunity for any change that is needed but cannot grow to fruition.
Another aspect is how these types of politician tend to further spread their influence into means outside their role as members of Congress. We have seen some very unqualified and outright corrupt politicians remain in office indefinitely because they can buy influence and votes. Having a default means of ridding politicians regardless is a mechanism to address this.
Also, we have seen Term Limits in the Presidency since after the FDR administration and it has not hurt the presidency due the measures suggested in our host’s and others’ opinions.
If the threat is that lobbyists and special interests will then begin writing legislation, well frankly if as Mr. Trump proposed, we could mitigate that problem through campaign finance reform. If the federal government was the sole provider of monies to pay for campaign advertising there would be little room to buy politicians to win favorable legislation in exchange for campaign contributions.
On another side, why should it be an issue that politicians, especially representatives, require a learning curve spanning many years. If the politician is so incompetent that they cannot learn how to govern in a short amount of time they are not qualified for that position. Of course, that is up to the voters to decide, but what miscreants have we been provided so far? We get inept and questionable leaders because the duopoly prevents anybody outside the old boys clubs from entering the arena for the public to decide. If we had actually many choices for the general election, it would force the parties, which I continue to believe are a bad idea and I am in agreement with President Washington, to reform and recommend competency as being a requisite else suffer defeat at the polls.
And, I can say from experience in voting in my state which went to the top two system that the legislature and the governor forced on us and it was immensely unpopular, that having only two get to the general means that only democrats and republicans or only one per ticket, are eligible for election, both in de facto terms and de jure. I propose that the primary election be completely eliminated and open the marketplace of ideas to a multitude of candidates. We would have more choices and as a result there will be a better chance that despots will be sent to the dust bin of history.
Sounds good to me.
Great post.
Term limits are a way to make the Congress even less functional than it already is.
Good. An inefficient Congress is the only protection we have from our rulers who, when they act, act mischievously.
But congress has lost the will to accomplish and only focuses on reelection and fund raising. If people took an interest in government they would vote them out for lack of merit.
Term limits are not a bad idea. I’m tired of hearing the professional politicians tell how long they have been in Congress or the Senate as if the nation is in such good shape as a result.
I really like the idea. But……it’s already been passed signed into law and rejected by the Supreme Court. That only leaves two ways. An Amendment just do like all the biggies and ignore the law. Think anyone would recognize the difference? Think the impotent useless congress would give up their fat do nothing lifestyle? Not a chance.
I really like the idea. But……it’s already been passed signed into law and rejected by the Supreme Court. That only leaves two ways.
Have the cojones to pass court-stripping legislation. The explicit authorization to do so is in Article I.
Thank you Professor Turley for these comments. What I was horrified (not withstanding the spin by his surrogates) was his refusal to accept the election results.
You were “horrified” stop acting like a Mary. If the topic is the debate lets talk about what each candidate has planned to correct the direction we are going. “Horrified” you need Brando to slap your face and tell you to
“act like man”.
Thank you for your comments.
Why would anyone not challenge a very close vote count? That happened in Florida. First it was called for Gore, then it was called for Bush. Then it was retracted and not called at all. It was so close a mandatory recount began. Both Gore and Bush challenged the fairness of the manner in which the recounts were occurring. The Supreme Court finally ruled on December 12, 2000. The transfer of Power occurred peacefully, as it always does, minus the ‘W’ on all of the computer keyboards in the White House.
If the election is indeed close then a challenge is probably appropriate. What, however, constitutes close? The more important question is what will Trump do if the election is not close. If he loses by a million or more votes, will he accept the outcome? I suspect that no matter what the results, Trump will not accept the results. Given the well established fact that just about the worst thing a person can be in Trump’s view is a loser, I suspect he won’t accept being the loser and will whine that he was cheated out of the election, no matter what the final vote count. I hope I am wrong.
Thank you for your comments.
appreciate the follow BTW of my personal blog…hope you check out the Weekly Outsider which is also in development…thnks again…looking forward to staying in touch 🙂 🙂