The US Federal Government Should Not Pass a Congressional Term Limit Amendment

I. Subversion of the Democratic Process The United States, from its very inception, was founded on the principle that everyone (although the “every” part took a while) should have an equal voice in what the government should do. Term limits are antithetical to this concept because they force voters to vote for different politicians every certain number of years, even if the majority of voters want to keep that politician in office. Term limits block voters from exercising their right to vote for whomever they choose. And this cost comes with no certain reward. We already have a process by which we can remove politicians from office without the need for term limits, namely the voting process. Term limits no more encourage democracy in this way than simple voter input does. With no benefit and a lot of cost to democracy, we see that term limits should not be enacted in a democratic society. II. Lame Duck Terms Another detriment of the concept of term limits is the fact that, if they were enacted, congressmen wouldn’t have to answer to the people they represent, because they wouldn’t have to worry about reelection. In that case, congressmen would pass bills that would suit their interests instead of the interests of the people. If there were no term limits, except in cases where congressmen retire fully from politics (and by then, they’ve probably already served their interests enough that they don’t have to do it so much), they would always have to answer to the people they represent. “If a two-term limit were imposed on the Senate, even if only half the first-term senators sought and received re-election, on average a full one-third of senators would be lame ducks (two-thirds of the Senate eligible for re-election, multiplied by one-half re-elected, equals one-third lame duck -- starting from any other proportion of first-term to second-term senators moves quickly to this equilibrium state). More realistically, if 80 percent of senators eligible for re-election are re-elected, lame ducks will, on average, fill 44 seats in the Senate (55 5/9 x .80 = 44 4/9). That represents a large chunk of power with no democratic restraint on it. ”[1] III. The Benefits of Experienced Congressmen Term limits make it such that congressmen can only have a certain amount of experience. This is not beneficial, because congressmen must learn and master a wide variety of issues. This process is inhibited by term limits because, one, since the variety of issues is so large, it would take a lot of time to master them all, at least as long as what a term limit would be, meaning that, once a congressmen becomes fully experienced (assuming they are even able to become fully experienced), they would soon be forced out of office, and two, many new congressmen come in every election year, many more than there would be without congressional term limits, meaning that congress as a whole would be less experienced. In other words, if term limits were enacted, all of the experienced congressmen would be forced out and more inexperienced congressmen would be voted in than otherwise. In the business world, experience is valued because, with experience, comes knowledge of how to be efficient in your job and how to perform your job well. Running a government can be significantly more complicated than running a business. Thus, we should want congressmen who have a good amount of experience in office. "Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it. "[2] James Madison himself said in Federalist Paper 53 that, “[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them. ”[3] A look at states where congressional term limits have been enacted shows this. One such state is California, which has enacted term limits and has been the premier example of fiscal ineptitude and poor governance. Another state is Missouri, where one study by the University of Missouri’s Truman School of Public Affairs concluded, “…that the shortening of lawmakers' careers has contributed to a lack of political expertise in the general assembly - resulting in a less effective government. ”[2][4] One consequence of enacting congressional term limits is that congressmen, being, on average, less experienced (compared to the average congressman in a world without term limits), turn to the help of bureaucrats and lobbyists. This is a serious problem because bureaucrats and lobbyists typically have interests that they’d like to see advanced, which would influence the advice they’d give to inexperienced congressmen. This would then manifest itself in how congressmen voted on bills. In other words, with congressional term limits enacted, congressmen would become less an instrument of the people’s will and more an instrument of bureaucrats’ and lobbyists’ wills. “[Reasearch associate professor] Valentine argues that the disappearance of long-term or career politicians in the general assembly has led to a deficit of policy experts. A former state senate staffer, Valentine said that the traditional route for lawmakers to distinguish themselves was to become a respected expert on a certain policy area and then become a resource for other lawmakers. Without this practice, Valentine said term limits have given more power to lobbyists who - as non-government employees - can remain in the halls of the capitol longer than any elected official in Jefferson City ever could. But at the same time, these lobbyists are not held accountable to constituents. ”[4] Conclusion Thus, we have seen that term limits subvert the democratic process, reduce the average experience that congressmen have, which means that congressmen are, on average, less able to do their job well and are more susceptible to taking bureaucrats’ and lobbyists’ leads, and introduces far more lame duck congressmen. Therefore, term limits should not be imposed for congressmen. Sources [1]: . http://voices.washingtonpost.com...[2]: . http://www.missourilife.com...[3]: . http://avalon.law.yale.edu...[4]: . http://www.nytimes.com...