Congressional term limits mentioned this election, likelihood for action less than likely
“Politicians and diapers must be changed often and for the same reason.” Famous American novelist and philosopher Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, is known to have said these words of advocacy for instituting Congressional term limits.
The controversial topic of limiting elected representatives to a finite number of terms served is once again becoming a major focus of this election cycle. In fact, presidential candidate Donald J. Trump just recently raised the issue as a top priority of his administration, if elected.
Over the past few weeks of this year’s less-than-fortunate presidential campaign cycle, Trump has brought about serious claims that the political process is seriously corrupt and promises to “bring the ‘change’ to end the ‘rigged’ system” through the institution of Congressional term limits at the federal level. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, is not necessarily opposed to instituting such policy measures during her administration, but she has not yet publicly expressed her opinion regarding term limits.
Advocates of instituting a maximum service period for elected representatives want to ensure they are “citizen legislators, not career politicians.” This perspective originates from the belief that, after a certain number of years of public service, the motivations of politicians can begin to depart from the will of the people whom they were elected to serve. Term limit advocates believe that corruption eventually finds its way into the minds and actions of public servants and sooner than is realized by the general population.
Senior Chelsea Gilbertson, president of College Democrats, said she believes that “there are both good and bad aspects of term limits.”
Currently, 15 state constitutions impose legislative term limits on their state representatives. Unfortunately for individuals who would like to see term limits be implemented at the federal level, however, it is just as procedurally unlikely as it is unconstitutional. Such a proposition would be strongly opposed by those who would be required to pass such legislation, the politicians themselves. Further, it was already deemed unconstitutional to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court back in 1995 and would, therefore, require a constitutional amendment, an extremely rare and difficult happening.
Senior Kade Lamberty is the president of College Republicans and a co-host of Coyote Radio’s “Politics Tonight,” a radio show that I also co-host. According to Lamberty, not only would the implementation of term limits be procedurally impractical, it would reduce the democratic process. Lamberty said he believes the mandatory enforcement of term limits, to a certain extent, limits the option for voters to choose their representatives. According to Lamberty, the term limit should be decided by the voter in the voting booth.
“In a democracy, the voters’ decision on Election Day should serve as a referendum on the incumbent’s policies,” he said.
In addition to the 15 states that currently impose legislative term limits, six more adopted term limits but have since nullified that adoption.
buy propecia generic gaetzpharmacy.com/propecia.html no prescription
A total of 36 states impose various forms of gubernatorial term limits for their governors. South Dakota adopted its universal eight-year legislative term limit in 1992. South Dakota governors are limited to two terms of service; however, their eligibility automatically renews after being out of office for four years.
While there may be many pros and cons to Congressional term limits at the federal level, the likelihood of such a policy is near impossibility, unfortunately or not.
