Should Senators and Congressmen have a term limit? No, they shouldn't. Many advocate term limits for our legislators because it would help prevent abuse of power, corruption and influence by lobbyists. However what they don't take into account is that it will eject our most experienced and knowledgeable members from Congress.
The United States federal government only has one office that has constitutional term limits, and that is for the President of the United States. However, this limit was not initially put in the Constitution when the Founding Fathers wrote it. Presidential term limits only arose from the Twenty-second Amendment, which was ratified in 1951.
Prior to the Twenty-second Amendment, Presidents traditionally served at most two terms, in recognition of George Washington limiting himself to two terms rather than continuing to lead and relegating the United States to a de facto monarchy.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt ignored this tradition and was elected into office for an unprecedented four terms, Congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment to limit how often one man can serve as President of the United States.
Term limits for the President is an important aspect of American democracy. The President has very broad and very sweeping powers, the better for him to execute the laws of the nation with ease.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States' executive branch was the same as the Confederation's Congress. This meant that the nation's power to enforce the laws were as divided as the nation's power to create laws.
This division in a group executive caused the Constitutional Convention to create a strong singular executive branch under one person. Because the whole of the enforcement of laws in the U.S. is ultimately under one person, it would be difficult to undermine that enforcement.
Within the executive branch, the President would be the sole head of executive authority for ease of enforcement. This is why he has so many broad strong powers, and why the office has term limits to prevent abuse of those powers.
Congress is a different body altogether. While the executive relies on hierarchal chain of command to pursue the President's policies, the legislature relies on competing division of power within it to provide for legislation.
Congress has many powers, but it must act in a majority in order to use those powers. How the majority uses Congress' powers is dependant on the Senators and Congressmen who are elected into office.
This, not term limits, are the proper balance against abuse of power for Senators and Congressmen. Individually, they hold very little power in our federal government. Collectively, their power is quite considerable.
However, getting enough collective power to focus on one issue is extremely difficult to do. This is the prevention against corruption we have for Senators and Congressmen.
An important reason against Congressional term limits is that it unduly penalizes successful Senators and Congressmen. If a Congressman is not really following the will of his constituency, it is up to his constituents to vote him out of office in the next primary or general election. It should be up to the people of the state or congressional district to determine who can or can't represent them.
Advocates of congressional term limits counter this by stating that campaign contributions affect elections more than constituent voters. Senators and Congressmen often receive contributions from corporations and organizations that are outside their state or district. Because of this, Senators and Congressmen aren't really representing their constituents but rather contributors outside the scope of their of their electorate.
To that criticism, I would say that congressional term limits is not the answer but rather campaign finance reform. If outside contributors are influencing Senators and Congressmen too much, then how campaign funding is received should be addressed.
For example, a law stating that Senators can only receive funds from in-state organizations or that Congressmen can only receive funds from contributors within their district should be passed. A law such as this would help further local control of Senators and Congressmen better than term limits.
If term limits were passed, all it would mean is that Senators and Congressmen would be more influenced by contributions because of their naivet on issues than experienced politicians would be.
Another reason why term limits for legislators is a bad idea is because it gets rid of our most experienced Senators and Congressmen. The experience of our veteran legislators is a great boon to our country. It provides knowledgeability, reliability and stability in our government.
Lack of term limits keeps our government knowledgeable because the President can only execute laws that Congress passes. This means that Congress must be aware of the subtleties and implications of the laws they pass, and aware on a constant basis. This knowledgeability takes the form of congressional committees.
Congressional committees are organizations within the House and the Senate that has specific legislative duties. There are 21 permanent committees in the House, 20 permanent committees in the Senate, and 4 join committees that operates on matters of mutual jurisdiction and oversight in which both Congressmen and Senators are members.
Each committee specializes on a specific area of expertise, such as the House Foreign Affairs Committee or the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
Not only do they consider bills and recommend measures for consideration to Congress, they also have the responsibility to provide oversight to federal agencies and activities within their jurisdiction.
For example, both the House and Senate have an Armed Services Committee. The House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee have oversight powers over the U.S. military, despite the President being commander-in-chief and the Secretary of Defense directing policy for the Department of Defense, which the military is subordinate to. The Armed Services Committees exist so the House and Senate can be able to write legislation with regards to the U.S. military.
As Congressmen and Senators serve on congressional committees, they become more and more knowledgeable and experienced in the area of the committees' expertise. Congressmen become experts through their monitoring and oversight on areas that government legislate. This allows Congress to make educated decisions when they pass legislation.
More importantly than that, though, Congress can advise the President and Cabinet departments on courses of action. For example, the President doesn't rely just on the Department of State for advice on foreign affairs. He can also call upon the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to advise him.
Cabinet departments can be bureaucracies which, depending on who's serving, may seek to direct the President rather than be directed by him. A President who relies on congressional committees has some redundancy outside his executive department and agencies. This allows several independent flows of information for important issues the President must make decisions on.
The experience that Congressmen and Senators gain by serving in congressional committees does not only help Congress be successful in passing legislation; it also helps the President when he must make Cabinet appointments.
A new President entering the office needs reliable experienced people to direct the massive federal departments and agencies under his control. Many of these appointments to executive agencies are Congressmen and Senators who sat on congressional committees relating to the agencies they now direct.
For example, during Barack Obama's presidential campaign, a common criticism against him was that he was too young and inexperienced to properly fill the role of President, especially in the post-9/11 global environment. In order to ease such fears, Obama chose as his Vice President the long-time Senator Joe Biden.
Joe Biden had served as a Senator for 36 years. During his tenure he sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His foreign policy experience by sitting on that committee helped balance Obama's lack of experience in matters of state.
Ken Salazar, his Secretary of the Interior, sat on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs before being appointed to Obama's administration.
Hilda Solis, his Secretary of Labor, sat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and House Committee on Natural Resources. Ray LaHood was a Republican Congressman who served on the House Committee on Appropriations and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence before becoming Obama's Secretary of Transportation.
Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State for President Obama, served as a Senator and sat on the Senate Budget Committee, Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and the Senate Special Aging Committee. Her experience on those committees will be very valuable to Obama when it comes to directing foreign policy during America's time of war.
This illustrates that the executive heads of the federal agencies from the President don't just show up. Many of them are chosen from Congress, where they have gotten a large amount of experience by serving on committees.
It could be said, then, that Congress is an excellent recruitment source for personnel for Presidential administrations. Without having experienced Congressmen to recruit from, Presidents may have a more difficult time finding qualified people to serve under him.
Should Senators and Congressmen have term limits? No, they shouldn't. Doing so would inhibit political professional far too much. While many Americans have nothing but contempt for political professionals, they serve an important role in our country.
By serving the government, they become intimately knowledgeable in how government affects all aspects of life. This experience and skills that they garner over their lifetime only helps them in serving our nation.
We need experienced people who help foster domestic tranquility and protect us from foreign enemies. The United States Congress is the best source for those people.
After all, we don't limit medical doctors to practice for only for a set amount of time. We don't limit how long lawyers can practice either. If we're afraid of abuse of power in this country, why don't we limit how many years someone can work as a corporate executive earning millions of dollars since it's been proven that money often possesses more practical power than the law?
We don't. We don't because a modern society such as ours relies on specialists, and specialization can come only with experience. Get rid of our ability to specialize and gain experience and you get rid of our nation's keys to success.
We need politicians in order to legislate and execute the laws of the United States, and we need them to be professional to do it successfully. While there is always the danger of abuse of power, the response to that is not term limits but rather other checks and balances to limit it.
Otherwise, our country will suffer from inexperienced and ignorant Congressmen, a danger more destructive than an experienced one could ever be.