The President of the United States is sometimes called the leader of the free world. Yet many people believe that Congress has as much (or more) power than the president. Congress, after all, is responsible for passing the laws that shape our country. Only Congress can declare war. Congress is meant to serve as a counterweight, if need be, to the president. Neither can act without the other’s cooperation.
Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, the presidency has been wisely limited to two terms. Term limits are advantageous to everyone. It lends urgency to the political party in power and hope to the opposition. Term limits guarantee no one can remain in office indefinitely, despite the money and power at their disposal. Term limits force us out of our apathy by requiring us to pick a new leader. This safeguard is missing in Congress. The House of Representatives and the Senate have no term limits. They argue that voters can choose new representation every election cycle. If Americans want to replace their representation, they only need to vote for a new candidate. If they vote the same people into office, they must be satisfied.
This is misleading. Americans are deeply dissatisfied with and distrustful of Congress. President George W. Bush’s approval rating of 23% looks wildly popular when compared to the single digit ratings Congress routinely garners. We allow incompetent and destructive people to become fixtures in Congress, because we feel helpless against their entrenched power. When Congress gave (not loaned) the financial industry over 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money, the Americans who earned that money were wondering how to make ends meet. While Americans lie awake at night worrying about the stability of their jobs and the threat of foreclosure, Congress endorses unfair trade agreements at our expense. We feel betrayed, but raising the groundswell of support and money to get a more suitable candidate into office is often beyond the reach of ordinary people. For these reasons, the only fair and democratic solution is to impose term limits on Congress.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Harriet
this is ridiculus, it's their careers to be lawmakers, just like other people are accountants or doctors. what do you want, plumbers and housewives taking turns making your laws?
2 - Cindy D
Only Congress can declare war. Congress is meant to serve as a counterweight, if need be, to the president. Neither can act without the other’s cooperation.
Uh yea, right, sure.
3 - Cindy D
Ruby,
Did you ever wonder whether the dead people cared whether a war was declared or informal?
What about the secret war against the third world that was waged without congressional knowledge starting in 1947 with the CIA?
4 - Ruby Lee
Cindy... Whether a lawmakers is an ordinary citizen or a career politician, they can't do anything about a war they are unaware of.
Oh, and yeah, Harriet. I would MUCH rather have plumbers and housewives taking turns making laws than being told what to do by people who have nothing in common with the average American.
5 - Cindy D
Forgive me Ruby.
Everyone seems to be dissatisfied with the government. And yet it seems like living in a 100 degree room and moving from the sofa to the dining room to the bedroom hoping that by shifting things around, something will make you feel cooler.
When the problem is that its 100 degrees. Nothing will change that unless you open the window or go outside.
We are governed by the whims of people with enormous capital and influence. Shifting the terms of their pawns around doesn't seem likely to result in much of a decrease in temperature.
The air conditioner is broken.
6 - Clavos
what do you want, plumbers and housewives taking turns making your laws?
Yes, actually.
7 - Cindy D
I'd like to be making my own laws thanks. But, if I had to have someone else making them I would definitely go with the plumbers and housewives.
Even if they don't have "content".
8 - Cindy D
Ruby,
How do you fry a pickle?
9 - Ruby Lee
To be truthful, I don't. I am not what you would call "a culinary talent." But I do enjoy EATING fried pickles. I highly recommend them!
10 - Cindy D
Heh,
Fair enough. Maybe I will get that opportunity some day. :-)
11 - El Bicho
"Neither can act without the other’s cooperation."
Are you not counting executive orders and veto-proof majorities?
"Term limits guarantee no one can remain in office indefinitely"
We already have a guarantee and it's called voting. People need to get off their behinds and organize not just wait until the system forces someone out. And the replacement from the party will likely just be a carbon copy of who they put up before. There will be no radical chance unless the people get actively involved. Besides, if I think someone is doing a good job, why should I not be allowed to vote for them because of some arbitrary limit imposed?
Sorry, but you didn't make your case.
12 - Arch Conservative
Harriet deserves a cyber smack for her comment.
13 - Ruby Lee
El Bicho - I do agree with you that voters ought to be vigilant, and hold incumbent lawmakers accountable. That would be ideal - unfortunately, we haven't done that. We'd probably have the same problem with unlimited terms if we allowed U.S. presidents to run for unlimited terms (okay, maybe not with the current president, but someone like Clinton or Reagan). It makes sense to amend the law. Why should we allow corruption to flourish because of our complacency? Why not close that loophole?
14 - El Bicho
"unfortunately, we haven't done that."
What evidence is there that term limits are going to make that happen? The problem is the voters not taking part in the process, not the candidates who are successful within the system. I would support mandatory voting before term limits.
Again, why should I not be allowed to vote for someone I believe is doing a good job as my representative based on some arbitrary limit due to the apathy of other voters?
There's no reason to believe corruption wouldn't flourish with term limits in place since the same parties would be putting up their candidates. Nixon had term limits.
What you want to do is punish the people who have become successful within the political process. Sounds un-American to me.
15 - Bailey
Just as a two term limit was needed for the Presidency, I agree the two term limit would be the right thing for Congressional leaders.
Qualified candidates from the independent group would balance the Democrat & Republican parties.
There should be a watch-dog atmosphere in Congress to see that special interest groups and lobby groups do not improperly influence legislators with donations to campaign chests in exchange for favors. This was seen as an issue in the Wall Street bailout gift 100 x greater than the automotive bailout loan.
16 - Matthew T. Sussman
Congressional approval was wavering in the teens and low 20s going into Election Day. Most incumbents won in landslide elections, in many cases by 2/3 the vote, so "it's not my congressperson's fault." The only way for voters to slap Congress in the face is to vote against whoever their incumbent congressperson is. That's kind of effective, but term limits might be the way to go.
Bicho, have you read what Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington thought about term limits? It's worth a look. It's not "punishing" good Congresspeople, because good Congresspeople will always find a way to positively influence our country. It's not punishing athletes to say they can only play four years in college. It's not punishing a good President or mayor to say their time is up. It doesn't punish Miss USA after a year by saying "you're not pretty anymore." The whole point of this kind of government was that someone never stays in power too long, I thought.
Also, the reality of the problem? Term limits have to be approved by ... Congress.
17 - Harriet
sorry but I don't want joe shmo making my laws. I want somebody with an education and experience and a real background in making laws. Ruby - Do you know what would happen if your ideas were actually put into place? what if some conservative housewife from Kansas was making our laws? No tolerance. What if some drug addict from California was making our laws? welfare state. No regular run-of-the-mill citizen is qualifeid to make our laws.
18 - Matthew T. Sussman
"No regular run-of-the-mill citizen is qualifeid to make our laws."
Then don't vote for that candidate who eats paste. Have you ever considered the thousands of viable congresspeople who spent time being state representatives or part of a city council that can do the job? I'd imagine they'd have a better chance at winning an election over a regular person anyway, although if a regular person had good ideas, I see no reason not to elect them, because they alone can't put legislation into place. In fact I think part of the problem is that more people aren't trying to run for public office, because I bet there is a lot of brainpower out there that could be put to good use.
Sarah Palin worked her way up the ranks and regardless of what you thought of her as a VP candidate, most would agree she was good for Alaska and was well-liked within her state. She didn't exactly have the "background" for it, but she got the experience the way bloggers got mass media experience, by starting small and staying diligent.
19 - Ruvy
Harriet,
sorry but I don't want joe shmo making my laws. I want somebody with an education and experience and a real background in making laws.
Why should a philosopher bother himself with the ugly business of making law? What have you got that he needs? Once upon a time, when I was five, there was a philosopher running for high office - and everybody laughed Adlai Stevenson off as an egghead. Why should a philosopher put himself in the position of being called a dweeb?
What's in it for him? That is the reason so many second-rate schmucks with huge egos who can charm the signature onto a contribution check go into politics. The second-rate schmucks with the big egos don't care what you call them, because once they get into office, they don't have to give a tinker's dam about you.
20 - El Bicho
Just because Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington had an opinion doesn't mean they always had it right. They were all slave owners, and Jefferson didn't think women should hold office.
The representatives work for me. I wouldn't fire someone who did a good job because of a time limit. I would want to keep them around.
21 - Cindy D
Harriet,
Or "heaven" help us what if someone such as yourself was making the law?
I am beginning to see your point!
I think I will go back to supporting self-governance.
22 - Clavos
No regular run-of-the-mill citizen is qualifeid to make our laws.
Anyone, and I mean anyone is as qualified as the current crop (or any crop) of congressclowns.
Most "ordinary" people are more qualified...
23 - Dave Nalle
While Franklin owned household slaves in his youth, he freed them and became a leading figure in the early abolition movement long before he died. He may have been a philanderer and the father of more than a dozen bastards, but his record on slavery is more positive than that of any other major founding father except maybe Adams.
Dave
24 - El Bicho
What's your definition of "his youth"?
From what I see online Benji didn't release his slaves until 1785, which would have put him at a youthful 79, but I have learned not to trust things I read on the Internet.
Given time, he may have come around on term limits, too.
25 - Matthew T. Sussman
I'm not saying term limits are good because three founding fathers thought they were good. (Although, if we are dismissing everything they're saying because they owned slaves, then would you like to co-author a new Constitution with me that doesn't include the three-fifths rule?) But since they were sort of behind the whole law of our land thing, I'm interested in what they think.
"The representatives work for me. I wouldn't fire someone who did a good job because of a time limit. I would want to keep them around."
Congressional approval is in the teens and 20s, and we approved 95% of incumbent Representatives and 88%* of incumbent Senators (of those who chose to run for re-election) because they did a "good job." The American people -- and that includes you and me -- do not seem to be very qualified to judge incumbents, or they don't know a brilliant Congress when they see one. And like I said before, good people will find good jobs that help move this country forward.
Another real problem with term limits, much like changing from BCS to playoffs, is specifics. How many terms is too many? 5? 10? Every sixth US representative has been in power for at least 10 terms (20 years).
* - Assuming Al Franken loses. If he wins, this number goes down to 86%.