Given that term limits have been in the news a fair amount lately, I thought it might be helpful to provide an expanded historical primer. The original Constitution included no provisions for term limits for the legislature or executive but granted life tenure on good behavior to federal judges (including the Supreme Court). The 22nd Amendment, ratified on February 27, 1951, limits presidents to two full terms in office. The crafting of the Constitution was done intentionally.
Hard to know what to do with congressional term limits. As you so cogently discuss, those who accomplish the most are those who have decades of personal relationships and expertise allowing them to do so. That said those same relationships and skills work to concentrate power in a few and lead to abuses and corruption. The judicial branch and Supreme Court, conversely, seems easy. Too much power in too few with insufficient accountability makes it obvious something to increase turnover and provide better checks and balances on their power is clear. Not only that, but the process for selecting justices needs reform as well. When one party in power in the senate can forestall action on a presidential nomination because that president is of the other party, something fundamental needs to change.
We have age limits for office in terms of minimums it’s reasonable to expect a maximum. I’d cap it at 75 years old.
We simply can’t have people leading us while in their 8th decade of life.
The Catholic Church is run by an 86 year old who either accepts or tables every bishops resignation when he turns 75 which has always been an interesting concept to me.
I appreciate your point on seniority in congress and perhaps I could be convinced of its appeal if many members didn’t end up as lobbyists after they either lose or seek more financial wealth.
I’m a little confused as to how you would set up the SC. Are you saying you would add members every two years and roll off justices into senior status?
Right now I’m reading a book on the battle of Secessionville which I recently learned of and Lincoln’s Battle With God by Stephen Mansfield.
Then I will read this book on mourning the presidents. 😀
Thanks for your insights - it’s always appreciated. Have a great week!
Yup, you have that right. It would stay nine members, but the most senior judge would roll off and a new one would come on every two years. It's not perfect, of course, but I think it would be a big improvement. Thank you for reading Mourning next!
Exactly. To put it bluntly, if you are old enough that you likely won't be around to feel the effects of your policies, you are too old to create them.
Excellent read, as usual. I almost literally laughed out loud though when you opined that you weren’t sure that Congress could be trusted to do the right thing. They have far too much power over too many things affecting themselves for my taste; term limits, pay raises, ethics investigations to name a few. I’m not sure how we rectify that situation though, since congressional oversight is in the hands of..., Congress. As an aside, as I began to type “congress”, one of the first auto correct choices was “corrupt” 🤭
Looking at the body of evidence from the past 20 years, the benefits you outline for longer terms are rare. Weighing the pros and cons I would say we have arrived a time when term limits make sense. Supreme Court/Federal Courts are easy. 25 years and done. The Legislative branch is more complicated but doable. Senate - two consecutive 6 years terms. After you sit out one term you can run again. The House should be changed to 4 years terms. Term limit is 3 consecutive terms After you sit out one full term you can run again.
I like the idea of changing the House term to 4 years. I think it would help Congress get stuff done if representatives weren't constantly running for office!
Term limits: For the Supreme Court, yes, it seems to be a real need. Something close to your idea would be good!
For Congress, and the executive also, there is the dilemma that you discuss. But instead of a black-or-white limit, where we serve the law, when the law is supposed to serve us, how about term limits that can be overruled by a higher level of voter support, say 60% or 2/3?
A complicating factor to me, is always campaign finance. It can be difficult to vote out a non-representative/non-responsive incumbent who has sold out to big money. Without this big issue, term limits might even be a non-issue altogether. Combine that with ranked-choice voting, which can maybe really reduce partisan entrenchment, and civics taught again, we might enliven our democracy, and have more people caring, and engaging their brains again. Harold Parker
Hard to know what to do with congressional term limits. As you so cogently discuss, those who accomplish the most are those who have decades of personal relationships and expertise allowing them to do so. That said those same relationships and skills work to concentrate power in a few and lead to abuses and corruption. The judicial branch and Supreme Court, conversely, seems easy. Too much power in too few with insufficient accountability makes it obvious something to increase turnover and provide better checks and balances on their power is clear. Not only that, but the process for selecting justices needs reform as well. When one party in power in the senate can forestall action on a presidential nomination because that president is of the other party, something fundamental needs to change.
Interesting and informative! The book section is a great addition, thanks for your recommendations. 😊👍🏻
Glad you like it too! I'm excited about it.
I’m in favor of age limits.
We have age limits for office in terms of minimums it’s reasonable to expect a maximum. I’d cap it at 75 years old.
We simply can’t have people leading us while in their 8th decade of life.
The Catholic Church is run by an 86 year old who either accepts or tables every bishops resignation when he turns 75 which has always been an interesting concept to me.
I appreciate your point on seniority in congress and perhaps I could be convinced of its appeal if many members didn’t end up as lobbyists after they either lose or seek more financial wealth.
I’m a little confused as to how you would set up the SC. Are you saying you would add members every two years and roll off justices into senior status?
Right now I’m reading a book on the battle of Secessionville which I recently learned of and Lincoln’s Battle With God by Stephen Mansfield.
Then I will read this book on mourning the presidents. 😀
Thanks for your insights - it’s always appreciated. Have a great week!
Yup, you have that right. It would stay nine members, but the most senior judge would roll off and a new one would come on every two years. It's not perfect, of course, but I think it would be a big improvement. Thank you for reading Mourning next!
Exactly. To put it bluntly, if you are old enough that you likely won't be around to feel the effects of your policies, you are too old to create them.
Excellent read, as usual. I almost literally laughed out loud though when you opined that you weren’t sure that Congress could be trusted to do the right thing. They have far too much power over too many things affecting themselves for my taste; term limits, pay raises, ethics investigations to name a few. I’m not sure how we rectify that situation though, since congressional oversight is in the hands of..., Congress. As an aside, as I began to type “congress”, one of the first auto correct choices was “corrupt” 🤭
Looking at the body of evidence from the past 20 years, the benefits you outline for longer terms are rare. Weighing the pros and cons I would say we have arrived a time when term limits make sense. Supreme Court/Federal Courts are easy. 25 years and done. The Legislative branch is more complicated but doable. Senate - two consecutive 6 years terms. After you sit out one term you can run again. The House should be changed to 4 years terms. Term limit is 3 consecutive terms After you sit out one full term you can run again.
I like the idea of changing the House term to 4 years. I think it would help Congress get stuff done if representatives weren't constantly running for office!
Term limits: For the Supreme Court, yes, it seems to be a real need. Something close to your idea would be good!
For Congress, and the executive also, there is the dilemma that you discuss. But instead of a black-or-white limit, where we serve the law, when the law is supposed to serve us, how about term limits that can be overruled by a higher level of voter support, say 60% or 2/3?
A complicating factor to me, is always campaign finance. It can be difficult to vote out a non-representative/non-responsive incumbent who has sold out to big money. Without this big issue, term limits might even be a non-issue altogether. Combine that with ranked-choice voting, which can maybe really reduce partisan entrenchment, and civics taught again, we might enliven our democracy, and have more people caring, and engaging their brains again. Harold Parker