Post by nels961 on Feb 16, 2004 16:10:41 GMT -5
Congressional Term Limits, Again
I am a Congressional Term Limits Amendment junkie who has been posting on various sites to stir up some activity in favor of this movement. To start the action, I have proposed a special wording for the amendment which goes as follows:
Excepting current incumbents of both houses indefinitely, as long as they are reelected successively, Members of the Senate shall serve a maximum of twelve years (two terms), and Members of the House shall serve a maximum of six years (three terms). Fractional terms not included herein.
Many responders who are in favor of term limits have objected to this wording saying that they do not want to give the ‘old bulls’ a pass. I understand their gut reaction. But that is no way to get something done!
The most direct way to get a constitutional amendment going is to get it thru Congress. And everyone agrees that is not going to happen if it means that current members of Congress are being asked to cut their own throats. So the only solution is to exempt current members of Congress!
The suggested rewording of the constitutional amendment does that. It at least removes the main objection that all the legislators would have, that is, the amendment would not apply to them, and their jobs would not be at risk. Thus they would be more amenable to voting for it, making themselves seem more statesmanlike, noble, and patriotic. If enough public opinion were marshalled in favor of it, there is a reasonable chance that it could pass.
Another objection to the proposal is that it would take too long to get to a really term limited Congress. Not so. By my calculation, considering only very few open seats and very few unsuccessful reelections every two years, in less than 20 years, over half of both houses would be term limited. The remaining seats would probably turn over even more quickly thereafter.
Of course nothing happens without money. Up to the present time, excepting the Republican abortive, half-hearted attempt in 1995’s Contract With America, there has not been a real grass roots effort to move Congressional Term Limits. In any case, no deep pockets citizens, nor for that matter small change citizens, would want to bankroll an effort that had NO chance to buck Congress’s objections to cancelling their own meal ticket. However, with the reworded amendment containing the exemption clause, the perception that Congress would object would be substantially diminished, and money support would be more likely.
I believe that if enough web postings (and other venues like talk shows and maverick columnists) were done to discuss the pros and cons of a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA), including the probable effectiveness of the exemption clause in the amendment, it would begin to look more feasible, and the dollars would start trickling in. The Dems have such as Soros who is using his own money ‘on principle’ to defeat Bush. I am sure there are some Conservatives (and possibly Liberals and Independents!) who might do the same for term limits, as long as it has a reasonable chance of succeeding. I also believe that CTLA has a deep built-in support in the American people (16 states already have statewide term limits) and it would take only a nominal shove to get it rolling nationwide to apply to Congress, in spite of massive resistance from a variety of special interests whose current connections and privileges would be disturbed.
Which brings me back to guys who still don’t think it can ever happen. Why don’t you make a counter proposal? Or are you willing to live with the prospect that all the members of Congress are elected more or less for life? And for all the other readers out there, how about joining me to make this a broader dialogue with a few more ideas to break down the resistance of the ‘old bulls’ in Congress?