Taking aim at life tenure for Supreme Court justices in my last posting has made me bold. Accordingly, I am going to submit for your approval a constitutional amendment that I have been considering for years.
I am a firm believer that elective office should be a public service -- not a career. Once a person is seduced by the prospect of being a career congressman or senator, that person sees his or her first duty as getting re-elected. And we all know what follows from that way of thinking.
If, however, a legislators were limited to a fixed tenure in office, they would, I believe, think more about the national interest than their personal interest, and they would be more concerned about the record they would leave behind once their terms were up, instead of being preoccupied with perpetuating themselves in power.
Term limits, I admit, are not a new idea, but I've given this idea a twist of my own. The constitutional amendment I envision would make several reforms.
First, it would give members of Congress a four-year term instead of the present two-year term. With a two-year term, it's amazing that congressmen have time to think about anything else but raising money for their next reelection campaign. A four-year term, would give them more time to concentrate on the nation's business.
Second, the four-year terms would be staggered, so that half of the House of Representives would be elected every two years, just as Senate terms are staggered so that one-third of the Senate is up for election every two years.
Third, the amendment would stipulate that no member of Congress could serve more than three successive four-year terms, and no member of the Senate could serve more than two successive six-year terms.
Thus, while it would be possible for a person to serve three successive four-year terms in the House, and then serve two six-year terms in the Senate, most of our legislators would end up serving no more than 12 years at a stretch. Is there anybody out there in cyberland who thinks that 12 years is too short a time to make a difference in Washington and then go home?
Furthermore, note the word, "successive." There is nothing in this amendment that would prevent a former congressman or a former senator from running again.
My thinking is that if this amendment were adopted, rotation in office would, over time, produce a sort of congressional alumni society -- that is, a class of fomer senators and congressmen who could help educate the people of their communities on national issues, and who would serve as a ready pool of experienced candidates whenever the voters decided it was time for a change in Washington.
I repeat what I said in my last posting. I'm sick of professional polticians. I want to give the amateurs a chance to shake things up.
Comments (2)
Well, the trouble, of course, comes in practice, not in theory. In theory if they couldn't get re-elected they would concentrate on their duty. However in practice, it doesn't seem to me that most lame ducks in *any* government job suddenly develop a conscience. There's something more to it than just the term limit.
In theory, term limits would prevent professional politicians. In practice, they just start using one term-limited job as a ladder to another; it creates a different kind of professional politico.
In theory limiting terms would allow amateurs a chance to shake things up. In practice the only people that can get elected in the first place are people with money -- not many of the true amateurs we talk about will fit that requirement.
In theory, amateurs in Washington would shake things up. In practice, I don't think that many amateurs are qualified for the job as it currently exists. While the idea of the local green grocer going to Washington to serve 4 years as a Congressman is romantic, do we really imagine that he would have the broad exposure and legal familiarity necessary to read and understand the difference between good law and bad law, and to write good law? I don't even credit myself with a complete understanding of the implications of the crud that gets mailed out with our ballots, and I have a pretty overblown opinion of my own intellect ... *grins* So if we send real amateurs, we end up with people who are easily pushed around or taken advantage of by the professional lobby that will still exist. And if we need someone to stand up to that crowd, we end up sending lawyers. And then we're right back where we started from ...
I think it may be more a matter of motivation than anything. Maybe we should create a rule: Anyone who wants the job is automatically disqualified ... :P
Posted by DeAnna B | January 21, 2006 4:09 PM
Posted on January 21, 2006 16:09
DeAnna --
Thanks for yr comment. As I replied to David Murray, Woodrow Wilson once said that every form of government has the defects of its own virtues. So I'm sure that there's a downside to my own idea.
And, yes, maybe I'm overly romantic with my "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" view of politics. But on the other hand, I worked on Capitol Hill, and I know that newcomers don't have to feel clueless if they have good staff to bring them up to speed.
I guess one reason why I'm so anxious to give the amateurs a chance is that I see members of Congress gerrymandering themselves in power, and the number of "contested" seats growing smaller with each election cycle.
At the same time, we're seeing the White House becoming a kind of Balkan royal palace, fought over by rival dynasties -- Bush succeeded by Clinton, Clinton succeeded by Bush, Bush succeeded by ... Clinton?
I don't think it's healthy for democracy.
Hal
Posted by Hal Gordon | January 23, 2006 9:54 AM
Posted on January 23, 2006 09:54