According to the Constitution of the United States, there currently are no term limits for members of Congress. If Robert Byrd wants to run for a 13th Senate term, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing that from happening. He has been in the Senate since 1953, and his current term is good until 2012. Nothing prohibits him from being elected yet again, that is, if his constituents will elect him again.
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) proposed an amendment back in December to the Constitution that would change this. His proposal (H.J.Res.63) would amend the Constitution to limit terms to 18 years (3 terms in the Senate, 9 terms in the House). Opencongress.org gives this proposal a 93% user approval, but I am skeptical about this resolution.
The reason that there currently are no term limits is because we, the people, hold our representatives and senators accountable. If they fail to represent my district or my state, we hold him/her accountable by not re-electing them. The motive for these politicians to represent the people is that they know they will not get re-elected if they fail. If this resolution were to pass, representatives/senators in their final term have absolutely no motive to do what their constituents want, because they have no possible way of running again. This is evidenced simply by the fact that presidential approval ratings (traditionally) fall in the president's second term, because they have no reason to please the people, because they already know they aren't going to campaign again.
This is the problem I have with it - I want the ability to hold our congressional leaders accountable. A senate term is 6 years. That's a long time. Can you imagine how bad it could be if we had a senator in his/her last term, not able to run again, and they were in there for SIX YEARS representing themselves, and not their constituents. I think that could cause some problems. Because representatives only have 2-year terms, I think there is more of a likelihood of that succeeding, and being beneficial. But still... if they are representing their constituents well, and they are liked in their district, why not let them run continuously? They're doing their job, why not?? They still have to run every 2 years, and get re-elected every 2 years.
The purpose of differing terms is simple. Let me explain what I mean by starting with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life - they never have to get "re-elected." The purpose behind that is we don't necessarily want the Supreme Court's opinions swaying with the people - we want their opinions solidly based in the Constitution. They don't have to worry about being unpopular, because they never have to run for re-election. We want their emphasis not on being liked, but on doing what's right.
Members of the House of Representatives, on the other hand, are up for re-election every two years. The purpose behind this is simple: their job is to REPRESENT, not do whatever they want, or randomly doing "this or that." We hold them to a high accountability, because if they fail to represent, they won't be re-elected, and that's the point. Their number 1 job is to represent the common interests of their district. If they fail at doing that, they won't stick around very long.
A final interesting point about H.J.Res.63 is that it has been in the House Judiciary Committee since it was first introduced, and the chair of that committee is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who has been in the House since 1965 - he's serving his 23rd term. Do you honestly think Conyers, the 45 year veteran, is in a hurry to pass a bill through his own committee that will force him to retire? Fat chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment