Liberty Amendments: Congressional Term Limits

 

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post lamenting the need for a strong leader, a visionary, a man of conviction to help us break the chains of tyranny that are enslaving us, a rebel who will stand up to the establishment and restore the principles of freedom on which our nation was founded. I think we have found one such man in Mark Levin—though I’m sure we need many such men to push back the despotic tide that is threatening to drown us all. 

Like the prophet Ezra turning his people back to the law of God after their exile in Babylon, Levin is calling Americans back to their law, to their founding principles—to the Constitution. He’s doing it through his book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.

My purpose in this post is not to debate the feasibility of state conventions in amending the Constitution — Mainly because one would need to read Levin’s book to grasp how this can be done. If you would like to discuss the constitutional process itself, I point you to Ricochet member Ole Summer’s post on The Liberty Amendments.

After reading the book, I do think Levin’s plan is possible (of course it is—the Founders wouldn’t have included it in the Constitution if they thought it weren’t possible!), but, as he says, it won’t happen overnight. This is not a plan for those addicted to instant gratification or quick fixes. This is a battle that will take years, but it is a beginning. It is a vision.

What I would like to do through a series of posts is discuss each amendment Levin has proposed — amendments designed to turn America back to the Constitution. This might seem strange—amending the Constitution to save it—but this is exactly the gift given to the American people by our founders when politicians have become too tyrannical to fix the government themselves.

The first amendment Levin has proposed is establishing term limits for members of Congress: 



SECTION 1: No person may serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.

SECTION 2: Upon ratification of this Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.

According to Levin, “There is nothing wrong with keeping a good public servant in office for as long as the official and we, the voters, want him there. New does not necessarily mean better, and often it can mean worse.” The problem is that in reality too often unexpected consequences prevail.

America has never been a pure democracy and majoritarianism has always been as much feared as monarchism. Moreover, our supposedly broad parameters of “choice” at the ballot box have actually caused a dramatic narrowing of electoral options for voters. Putting aside the media histrionics over “divided” government and the “dysfunctional” relationships between the two houses of Congress, these institutions are populated by a class of elected officials who jealously covet the power of public office.

 In 2010, 85 percent of incumbents from both parties were reelected—397 members of the House ran for reelection and 339 won. The Senate’s reelection rate was 84 percent.


Ronald Rotunda, Chapman University law professor and constitutional expert, made the point a few years ago that “turnover in the House of Lords has been greater than the turnover in the House of Representatives. There was even more turnover in the membership of the Soviet Politburo.”

As Levin says, “It is apparent that in Washington and most political capitals TIME in office = POWER.”


An important antidote is congressional term limits, which slowly displaces a self-perpetuating ruling class populated by professional politicians—which is increasingly authoritarian in its approach to governance—with a legislative body whose members are, in fact, more representative of the people, for they are rotated in and out of Congress over a generally shorter and defined period of time.

What do you think of this particular amendment in helping to reduce the power of the federal government and putting it back in the hands of the people? 

Levin’s 11 Proposed Liberty Amendments:

  1. Establish Congressional Term Limits
  2. Repeal the 17th Amendment and Restore the Senate
  3. Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
  4. Limit Federal Spending
  5.  Limit Federal Taxing
  6. Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
  7. Promote Free Enterprise
  8. Protect Private Property
  9. Grant States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
  10. Grant States Authority to Check Congress
  11. Protect the Vote

(While these are Levin’s suggestions, he has stated that others could certainly be proposed.)

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 74 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Mendel
    D.C. McAllister: Mendel–yes because not all of them would do that. Plus they wouldn’t be in congress long enough to develop their own power base to deliver on that kind of cronyism. What could they really offer to secure the cushy job. Not much when they don’t have the power. 

    This is what I mean by unintended consequences.

    Term limits supporters think they know what the world would look like under term limits, but we’re dealing with an incredibly complex system with many strong but unseen incentives.

    The writers of Obamacare were also very certain as to how it would play out.

    • #31
  2. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Mendel

    Here’s an alternative scenario:

    Due to intense gerrymandering, most districts will repeatedly vote for the same party. With term limits, there will be many districts which send a new (unexperienced) Republican to Washington every, eg., 12 years.  I imagine that many of these new Congressmen, being new to D.C., would retain (and rely more heavily on) the staffers of their predecessor.

    We would then have a situation in which the real legislative power was not in our elected officials, but in staffers who have been in Washington for 40 years and “know the ropes”.  

    How is this scenario less likely than the utopian one term limits supporters envision?

    • #32
  3. Profile Photo Podcaster
    @DaveCarter
    Sabrdance

    …American government is not like other governments -it is very responsive to the people.  It will ignore its own law if the people support ignoring the law, and the courts will go along.  There is no power in the Constitution which blesses Administrative Article II Courts -even Courts Martial are Article I courts -and yet we’ve had them for decades, and the Article III courts -who you’d think would object to the dilution of their power -acceded. …

    Isn’t this the key?  The people, speaking through their state legislators because the federal legislators have become corrupted unresponsive, demanding the restoration of limited government through specific measures that dismantle the federal leviathan?  I’m extremely skeptical that the federal government will willingly cede back its power without enormous pressure from the people and the states.  

    • #33
  4. Profile Photo Member
    @

    I live in California. Term limits have not been a failure. It has termed out some entrenched morons. It is however, not enough. There needs to be a qualifier: You cannot pull a public check ever again. Once a voted in representative, never again will you pull a public check.

    I’ve been advocate of term limits for the federal gov’t for awhile now. 5 terms/10 years for a Representative and 2 terms/12 years for a Senator. Once termed out you are eligible for COBRA and no lifetime pension.

    To supplement this, at the federal level, the bureaucracy needs to be dismantled with those tasks returned to the states for their discretion.

    Finally, Levin is not saying the Constitution is the problem. He’s using it to reform a corrupt and now, functionally, non-representative government.

    • #34
  5. Profile Photo Member
    @WillowSpring

    The problem with Ricochet is that it adds to my “books to read” faster than I can add to my “books read” list.  And by the time I get to the end of a thread, all of the arguments I had have been stated better than I could have stated them.

    I would like to add my fear that term limits would add to the power of bureaucrats, staff and lobbyists – none of whom are elected or recallable.  The problem is the shift of power from the states to the federal government (it is a shame that word is the only thing I can think of.  Maybe National government is more appropriate)

    I assume Mark’s book addresses these issues also.  Off to the Kindle App.

    • #35
  6. Profile Photo Inactive
    @rayconandlindacon

    The implicit meaning behind this conversation is that the government founded by our Revolutionaries is the ideal which we are seeking to restore through the process of amending the Constitution.

    Can a nation which no longer shares the Western Judeo-Christian basis for it’s civilization ever hope to accomplish this task?  Unless we are in agreement that there is a Creator Who blessed us with the understanding of “natural law”, which even the Greeks who long ago preceded our founding understood, how can we accept such a restoration as a people?

    Unless we are in agreement with John Adams that; “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”, success isn’t in our future.  That is, unless we believe that Adams was wrong, and that a tepidly religious people, not able to bridle their desires, and unwilling to enforce upon themselves the principles of natural law, can indeed, become the inheritors of the Constitution written by the Founders.

    As BrentB67 implies, we are not the people John Adams was referring to.  Without a renewal of our commitment to our Creator, we cannot succeed.

    • #36
  7. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Mendel
    3rd angle projection:

    Finally, Levin isnotsaying the Constitution is the problem. He’s using it to reform a corrupt and now, functionally, non-representative government. 

    If the Constitution cannot prevent this type of corruption and non-functioning without Levin’s amendments then by definition it is insufficient to the task.

    I doubt the Framers thought “this document will be great as long as no corrupt person ever runs for office.”

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with the notion that the Constitution inadequately protects us from certain persistent influences.  But conservatives have dug themselves into a rhetorical hole when it comes to the sanctity of that document.

    • #37
  8. Profile Photo Inactive
    @DCMcAllister

    Raycon–I’d refer you to my comment in #31. Even the colonists needed a great awakening, but true revival is an act of God along with God’s people responding in obedience to him. But there were also secular, political movements afoot. We need to press forward on all fronts.

    • #38
  9. Profile Photo Member
    @Sabrdance
    Mendel: Here’s an alternative scenario:

    Due to intense gerrymandering, most districts will repeatedly vote for the same party. With term limits, there will be many districts which send a new (unexperienced) Republican to Washington every, eg., 12 years.  I imagine that many of these new Congressmen, being new to D.C., would retain (and rely more heavily on) the staffers of their predecessor.

    We would then have a situation in which the real legislative power was not in our elected officials, but in staffers who have been in Washington for 40 years and “know the ropes”.  

    How is this scenario less likely than the utopian one term limits supporters envision? · 22 minutes ago

    This isn’t utopian -it’s been going on in the states for years.  There’s a whole literature on the professionalization of state legislatures.  Some of them are like Britain (as envisioned by Yes, Minister).  New legislator shows up on day one and is introduced to their professional, non-partisan staff.

    • #39
  10. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JMaestro

    Term limits have become a necessity. The power of incumbency has grown much too large.

    But I do agree with the others who point to the runaway administrative state as a problem at least as profound.

    Which means I also agree with those who lament the judiciary’s unwillingness to enforce existing laws — non-delegation, equal protection, and all of the Tenth Amendment.

    The government class will not obey the law until the citizens rise up and force them. Period. No judge or politician will do it on our behalf — that has been proven.

    • #40
  11. Profile Photo Inactive
    @DCMcAllister

    I’m also not ready to abandon the culture. I think there is still powerful theistic Judeo Christian worldview running through a gear many people in this country. They need to speak out more and call those bound by malaise to action. But again, I think we can move forward on many fronts.

    • #41
  12. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Karen

    Term limits won’t make any difference. Members of Congress have been currying favor with lobbyists for years to gets jobs, just ask Trent Lot. Serving in office, or even being employed by an office holder, is a mere stepping stone to fame and fortune. The deals you make in office pay off in dividends once you get out. Both sides do it, but It’d be nice if our side would call our offenders out, like the shady relationship between Haley Barbour and Terry McAuliffe’s GreenTech. We don’t need one strong, moral leader, we need about 500.

    • #42
  13. Profile Photo Inactive
    @user_19450

    Not to take away from Levin, but 20 years ago, George Will wrote “Restoration.” The entire book is a call for Congressional term limits. So far, everything I’ve heard Levin say about term limits (which I agree with, btw) was covered completely in Will’s book. That said – YES! Term limit Congress today! What’s more, convert every existing Congressional pension into a 401K, and promise no perks or benefits to Congress other than what a typical job would merit. (Certainly no life-time pensions.) We should make serving in Congress a part-time job that honorable people choose to do for a short term out of a sense of civic duty. They should be then thanked for their service and sent home to their real jobs.

    • #43
  14. Profile Photo Inactive
    @billy
    Dave Carter

    Isn’t this the key?  The people, speaking through their state legislators because the federal legislators have become corrupted unresponsive, demanding the restoration of limited government through specific measures that dismantle the federal leviathan?  I’m extremely skeptical that the federal government will willingly cede back its power without enormous pressure from the people and the states.   · 17 minutes ago

    I agree completely with this except the highlighted portion. I am skeptical that the return to a limited federal government will follow a orderly Constitutional process.

    Instead, it will be an incremental process, as governors and legislatures have a series of “Andrew Jackson” moments with regards to the federal courts and bureaucracy.

    • #44
  15. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BrentB67
    D.C. McAllister: I’m also not ready to abandon the culture. I think there is still powerful theistic Judeo Christian worldview running through a gear many people in this country. They need to speak out more and call those bound by malaise to action. But again, I think we can move forward on many fronts. · 10 minutes ago

    I hope you are correct. 

    • #45
  16. Profile Photo Inactive
    @DCMcAllister

    Karen—“We don’t need one strong, moral leader, we need about 500.” That’s definitely true, though a few good men can do a lot to make a difference if history is any indicator. As for the corruption you speak of, with term limits they wouldn’t have the time to build the power base to carry out these shinanigans. And if they are corrupt they at least wont be there forever. Still, nothing will be perfect. And Levin is recommending other solutions to curb the power and corruption.

    • #46
  17. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Mendel
    Dave Carter

    Sabrdance

     The people, speaking through their state legislators because the federal legislators have become corrupted unresponsive, demanding the restoration of limited government through specific measures that dismantle the federal leviathan?  I’m extremely skeptical that the federal government will willingly cede back its power without enormous pressure from the people and the states.

    I’m equally extremely skeptical that there are 38 states’ worth of citizens who are incensed enough about increasing government to demand change through their legislatures.

    • #47
  18. Profile Photo Inactive
    @DCMcAllister

    Mendel–that’s where we come in. Real community organizing–for the good. This is why it will take years. This is not a quick fix by any means.

    • #48
  19. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BrentB67
    Mendel

    Dave Carter

    Sabrdance

     The people, speaking through their state legislators because the federal legislators have become corrupted unresponsive, demanding the restoration of limited government through specific measures that dismantle the federal leviathan?  I’m extremely skeptical that the federal government will willingly cede back its power without enormous pressure from the people and the states.

    I’m equally extremely skeptical that there are 38 states’ worth of citizens who are incensed enough about increasing government to demand change through their legislatures. · 2 minutes ago

    I don’t think there are anywhere close to 38 that will do so. After a sovereign debt collapse or currency devaluation it may be a different situation.

    As of this writing? No way. Too many people too comfortable and complacent with leviathan. 

    If we saw more than half of incumbents get the boot in any cycle it may be a different story, but then that would be the first step into curing most of the ills that frustrate us.

    • #49
  20. Profile Photo Inactive
    @KCMulville

    Incumbency is a symptom, not a cause. I’m in favor of term limits, but I don’t think they’ll fix the problem.

    The essential problem is that the Founders created a system of checks and balances that depended on multiple constituencies. To be clear, the constitutional system depends on that multiplicity. It needs a healthy competition between the branches of government, between the states and federal government, public and private sector, and all the sub-constituencies in between.

    Instead, now we have only two competing forces. It doesn’t matter whether you’re in the executive or legislature, whether you’re in state or federal government, or anything else.

    The only thing that matters is party affiliation. 

    A system that depends on multiplicity has been reduced to a binary. 

    There’s a good reason why there were three branches, not two. If there are only two “teams,” either one team would dominate the other and wield power without effective restraint, or they would fight to stasis and get nothing done. That’s why they created many, but definitely three or more. 

    But the locked-in, two party system destroyed that multiplicity. 

    The problem is party.

    • #50
  21. Profile Photo Inactive
    @NickStuart
    Steve C.: 1. Change their pay structure. A per diem for each day they are in session.

    2. Limit congressional sessions to 120 days per year.

    State legislatures, not all, operate this way. The US Congress used to operate this way. · 2 hours ago

    How about a per diem for each day they are not in session? Incentivize them to wrap things up.

    • #51
  22. Profile Photo Podcaster
    @DaveCarter
    BrentB67

    Mendel

    Dave Carter

    Sabrdance

     The people, speaking through their state legislators because the federal legislators have become corrupted unresponsive, demanding the restoration of limited government through specific measures that dismantle the federal leviathan?  I’m extremely skeptical that the federal government will willingly cede back its power without enormous pressure from the people and the states.

    I’m equally extremely skeptical that there are 38 states’ worth of citizens who are incensed enough about increasing government to demand change through their legislatures. · 2 minutes ago

    I don’t think there are anywhere close to 38 that will do so.  …

    In which case the people acquiesce in their own enslavement.  I’m open to using this avenue, in concert with others (defunding Obamcare springs to mind, as does primary challenges to Status Quo Republicans), to restore limited government.  We can walk and chew gum at the same time.  

    • #52
  23. Profile Photo Member
    @JDFitzpatrick
    Bereket Kelile

    D.C. McAllister: Saberdance and berket—I pose the same question to you that I did to Nathaniel. This is one piece in going after the bureaucracy. In that light, are you open to it? 

    I would be against because I do not think that, on its own merits, it’s a good idea. For the reasons I mentioned, it does not do much to pare back the bureaucracy or prevent it from growing. I believe it will create a Congress that is unable to withstand pressure from lobbyists that expand the size and scope of gov’t. · 1 hour ago

    I share this skepticism, but I also wonder this: would the lawmaking body of the nation be so powerless before businessmen? Under term limits, is it possible that lawmakers will have less incentive to collaborate with lobbyists? Might the lawmakers themselves come from a class of less venal people?

    Hard for me to say. 

    • #53
  24. Profile Photo Member
    @BereketKelile
    J. D. Fitzpatrick

    I share this skepticism, but I also wonder this: would the lawmaking body of the nation be so powerless before businessmen? Under term limits, is it possible that lawmakers will have less incentive to collaborate with lobbyists? Might the lawmakers themselves come from a class of less venal people?

    Hard for me to say. 

    Pointing to California’s example, I’d say that the lobbyists will have all of the institutional knowledge and continuity. The lawmakers will be more like temporary renters. As soon as lawmakers learn how things work they have to leave and more than likely will move to K Street where they’ll continue to build their expertise. 

    • #54
  25. Profile Photo Inactive
    @RobGen

    Creating time limits for bureaucrats sounds interesting. Is that something  we could realistically argue for? It potentially would need to happen co-currently with term limits for higher levels of government. It kind of flies in the face of how most people hope to enter work in general, as a long career. Further, we’d need a much more buoyant economy to allow for that to happen smoothly.  Otherwise, a ten year stint in the civil service with no further specialization would probably guarantee a significantly worse paying job afterwards.

    • #55
  26. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Karen

    Denise, of course they’d have time to build the power base with term limits. Who do you think gets them elected in the first place? It’s not grandmas writing $10 checks, it’s big donors with financial interest in those districts. Once elected, the donor sends the hired lobbyist into the Congressman’s office. They probably know each other already. Unless you’re independently wealthy, you can’t run and win a seat in Congress without being owned by someone. Everyone should read or listen (it’s on Audible) to This Town by Mark Leibovich. Then we should do the conservative thing and not look to the government to fix our problems but hold each other accountable to the principles we presumably espouse. I’d start with Peter and Rob asking their friend and Ricochet member Haley Barbour why he’s helping Clinton chum Terry McAuliffe. If McAuliffe wins Virginia, it will only help the Dems, especially Hillary. Charity begins at home at all that.

    • #56
  27. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Mauritius

    Very quickly catching up to this thread, but I would say that for large, entrenched institutions nothing changes unless there is penalty or pain. So, my amendment is that any legislator that signs a law that is later ruled unconstitutional is immediately removed from office. The legislator that proposed the law is removed and tried for treason. You say they will never be held accountable by the courts? Probably true, but this is a work in progress.

    • #57
  28. Profile Photo Inactive
    @RedRules

    I love this idea and have been talking it up anytime I’m in a conversion about political corruption for years. But, like the FairTax (which is an equally fantastic idea), it will never see the light of day. We’d be asking the politicians to oust themselves from office. And seeing as how most of them don’t really give two (blanks) what their constituents think (which is probably fine considering the kind of people those constituents are voting into office), they can safely ignore any meaningful return to Constitutional governance. 

    • #58
  29. Profile Photo Inactive
    @RedRules

    Isn’t this the fault of the 17th amendment… the one that made elections to the Senate a majority vote? This is another one I would repeal.

    Dave Carter

    Sabrdance

    …American government is not like other governments -it is very responsive to the people.  It will ignore its own law if the people support ignoring the law, and the courts will go along.  There is no power in the Constitution which blesses Administrative Article II Courts -even Courts Martial are Article I courts -and yet we’ve had them for decades, and the Article III courts -who you’d think would object to the dilution of their power -acceded. …

    Isn’t this the key?  The people, speaking through their state legislators because the federal legislators have become corrupted unresponsive, demanding the restoration of limited government through specific measures that dismantle the federal leviathan?  I’m extremely skeptical that the federal government will willingly cede back its power without enormous pressure from the people and the states.   · 5 hours ago

    • #59
  30. Profile Photo Member
    @
    Mauritius: Very quickly catching up to this thread, but I would say that for large, entrenched institutions nothing changes unless there is penalty or pain. .. · 19 minutes ago

    Case in point- a budget. There has to be something that can be done to to punish them. In fact the media should pound on this to ‘throw all of the bums out’ in 2014. But the Left will just bring up another ‘burning’ issue we must react to.

    I tire of people saying we can never get a fair or flat tax-they sound like Republicans!  It may take a decade, but we can be like the Dems and never give up, and actually fight for it. I wish the Reps would make this one of their main platforms, as it would be the most effective.

    The term length suggestions here are way too long. What were Levin’s? Also, staff can be changed once in you’re in. Seems to me to the downfall of many a good leader- that they didn’t. No more bipartisianship, only winning. Another thing Republicans are afraid to do and Dems are not.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.