Last May, those of us who support term limits for all members of Congress started educating Americans on the purpose of Article V of the Constitution. There have been several issues in which this Article was used in the past, most recently, to effect a change in the Constitution for a Balanced Budget amendment. Unfortunately, that has hit several roadblocks, especially since we are unsure how to make the various proponents to agree on one or two specific reasons to get it through the States.
This Article was designed by the Framers to permit the States to circumvent the Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention or to enact legislation to present Amendments to the President for signature. This is a two- step process: First, 2/3 of the States (34) must agree there is a need for an amendment. Second, ¾ of the States (38) must ratify the Amendment.
The current movement has 24 States in various stages of the process to get the Amendment passed. This represents a significant increase over the last time the same process was begun in the early 1990s and failed in 1995. At that time, only 15 states agreed to limit Congressional terms. But since the 1994 election actually changed the Congress from a Democrat to a Republic majority, the feeling was that the logjam which existed since 1954 was finally freed. But the same problems which existed then still exist. Hence, the current movement.
I have been a proponent for years to limit terms for both the House and Senate. I have included my Commentaries from May 27, 2014 and July 15, 2013 outlining my proposals. Tomorrow, I will republish Part 2 of this series of commentaries concerning Congressional Salaries. I urge you to contact your State Representatives and demand they sign on to the Article V Movement for Term Limits. As always, your comments are welcomed.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Term Limits (revisited)
On May 26, 2014, Term Limits for Congress began the process under Article V of the Constitution to persuade at least 34 states (2/3) to call for a Constitutional amendment to limit terms of Representatives and Senators. On July 15, 2013, I wrote a two part commentary on Term Limits and also Congressional Salaries.
I am republishing both of these over the next two days in support of such an Amendment to the Constitution. As always, your comments are welcome. Thank you.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Term Limits
I remember on December 31, 2011, the late Ed Koch and I debated the issue of term limits for both members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is clear to me because I was sitting at my oncology center getting another chemo treatment for my cancer. And, of course, it’s either TV, read or play with your phone or iPad. You haves to pass the time away and keep your wits about you.
Anyway, I emailed him a commentary why term limits for Members of Congress was essential, and of course, as a former Congressman, he viewed the issue as a non-starter. His view was that while it made sense to term the Congress, no member would voluntarily limit their own power or control of the government.
My answer to him was that I read the Constitution forward, backward and inside out, and nowhere did it say that this was a civil service position that one had for life unless he or she was voted out. Incumbency, I said, was at least 2/3 of the reason people were elected again and again, even when they did nothing or did not act in the best interests of their constituents.
In addition, I continued, the Framers' intent, while not written, was inferred and implied that a citizen would devote some of his time and abilities to the good of the country and then, after a fashion, return to private life. Keeping in mind that the Congress met only for a brief time each year, this made eminently good sense, unlike now where it meets approximately nine months, spread out across the entire year.
I even reminded him that it was the Congress who brought forward, passed and ultimately was successful in creating the 22nd amendment, which limits the President to two four year terms, or a total of 10 years, in the event of a succession to the presidency by the Vice President or other key person in the line of succession, such as, the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, etc., as outlined in the Constitution. And of course, the language was not politically motivated, as it did not affect the person in office at the time it was passed by the states.
Surely, if you knew him or knew of him, Ed was a very strong-willed man, and as such, was unyielding in his position. I thanked him, of course, and we remained friends and continued to correspond right up until a few days before he died in February. I enjoyed our discourse and our debates, although on many issues, we did agree or at least, understood and respected each other when we didn't.
So now, having laid out the premise, finally, of this commentary, this is what I propose:
- A Constitutional Amendment to change the term of a Representative from two years to four years. The purpose of this is to provide for efficiency and productivity, so that the incumbent isn't beginning his next campaign six or eight months after his or her term began. The representative will be limited to two more elections thereafter, for life. Since the entire House is subject to election at the same time, this will be effective upon the first election after passage.
- In the same Amendment, change the term of a Senator from six years to four years, for the same reasons as outlined above. The Senator will be limited to two more elections, thereafter, for life. Any term not yet completed includes the remaining years of the current term. This will be effective with the first election after passage.
- At no time, however, will a Representative or Senator's term exceed 12 years. This includes terms created by appointment, special election or any other unlisted reason as the Member has an opportunity to be elected up to two more times on his or her own.
This is, of course, subject to review and debate. But it is essential that we begin to take back our Government and put its controls into the hands of the governed, not the governors. Now is the time to start.
What do you think? I am sure the Members of Congress would want to know, if they want what's best for the country and the people. Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment