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
    @Mauritius

    A followup to my previous post (#62) on making bad governance have a penalty factor. Citizens can sue lawmakers in civil court for an “unjust” law that caused them pain and suffering. For example, a is woman denied the right to have a gun for self defense due to draconian anti-gun laws. She is assaulted. She sues and wins. All the legislators that signed the law are named in the suit and must pay (out of personal savings). Most folks here might think this is WAY over the line, but how quickly do legislators pass bad law? Answer .. in the blink of an eye. Overnight in emergency sessions, and with no consequences. To get the law tossed, it may take years of litigation.

    • #61
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @Sabrdance
    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

     

     

     

    Another one that conservatives love, but doesn’t work.  When the 17th Amendment was passed, states were already thinking about the switch to direct election.  The Legislatures could pick senators however they wanted, so writing a piece of state law saying “The Legislature will ratify the results of the popular vote” would have achieved the effect without the amendment.

    It was the de facto method anyway -recall the Lincoln-Douglass debates?  They were campaigning for state legislators who had promised to send either Douglas or Lincoln to DC as senator.  I doubt we’d get Lincoln-Douglass debates again, but we’d certainly get state legislatures populated based on the popularity of US Senators.

    • #62
  3. Profile Photo Member
    @Sabrdance
    Karen:  Unless you’re independently wealthy, you can’t run and win a seat in Congress without being owned by someone.

    I hesitate to use the word “owned,” but there’s a pretty substantial literature on local government -which is still pretty amateur in the US -which indicates that local officials are free to do whatever they want, so long as they don’t cross the banks and businesses.  This isn’t because the banks and businesses have outsized power -often, they don’t spend a lot of money on local races (though they do have the social connections necessary to recruit candidates).

    Rather, if a city attacks the BBs, they respond by refusing to lend money to the city -often forcing the city to go elsewhere and pay higher interest rates.  If the attacks continue, the BBs up-and-leave, wrecking the local economy.

    As a result, no one who isn’t approved by the BBs ever makes it to the election -because nothing takes the wind out of a campaign like the major taxpayers threatening to leave if it wins.

    • #63
  4. Profile Photo Member
    @Sabrdance
    RobGen: Creating time limits for bureaucrats sounds interesting. Is that something  we could realistically argue for?

    Defeats the purpose of a professional bureaucracy.  Might as well go back to the spoils system.

    Actually, I’m in favor of that.  It might be corrupt, but it can be fired.

    • #64
  5. Profile Photo Member
    @
    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. · 6 hours ago

    How can it be viewed as a sanctified document if we’re taking a serious look at amending it?

    • #65
  6. Profile Photo Thatcher
    @MSJL

    This proposed amendment is music to my ears. When you consider that a place like Dearborn has only been represented by someone named “John Dingell” (first Sr. And then Jr.) for 80 years, it should make us shudder.

    • #66
  7. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BrentB67
    MSJL: This proposed amendment is music to my ears. When you consider that a place like Dearborn has only been represented by someone named “John Dingell” (first Sr. And then Jr.) for 80 years, it should make us shudder. · 12 hours ago

    It apparently doesn’t make the people in Dearborn shudder. They keep sending the Dingell family et al back to Washington.

    I don’t want anyone from Michigan telling me who I can or can’t vote for to represent me in Congress so I will respect the choice of the folks in Dearborn and surrounding congressional district.

    • #67
  8. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BrentB67
    Dave Carter

    Sabrdance

    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.   · 20 hours ago

    Dave, this is the challenge: we keep talking about our federal legislators like they are some Bolsheviks that took over ruling us by force. This is my congressman’s bio:

    Congressman Sessions was born on March 22, 1955 and grew up in Waco, Texas.  He graduated from Churchill High School in San Antonio and went on to graduate from Southwestern University in 1978, where he now serves on the Board of Trustees. He worked for then-Southwestern Bell Telephone Company for 16 years, retiring as District Manager for Marketing in Dallas. As a businessman, he served as Chairman of the Northeast Dallas Chamber of Commerce.

    This isn’t a communist sympathizer. This is the guy we have sent since 1996. He votes for more government occasionally because his constituents want it. And this is Texas 32!

    • #68
  9. Profile Photo Inactive
    @RobertHam

    As with BrentB and others, I have not yet read Levin’s book – but  plan to do so – To MSJL’s comment, I would add the names Kennedy, Cuomo, Bush, Clinton, Chaffee, Daley and likely, many others.

    Angelo Codevilla  aptly coined the term “ruling class” -to whom we have ceded control, while most of us have focused on earning a living, take care of our families and generally benefiting from the sacrifices of the Signatories to the Declaration of Independence.   This ruling class involves more than just elected officials.  Term limits, while an idea that has truly come – may in fact not really do as much as we might hope based on the entrenched bureacracy.  Nonetheless, we MUST fight back this massive government that knows only how to spend us into oblivion.

    If I understand Levin’s points based on his radio show and TV interview, it is meant to be done at the grass roots.   Ricochet would seem to be those “grass roots”.

     

    MSJL:  When you consider that a place like Dearborn has only been represented by someone named “John Dingell” (first Sr. And then Jr.) for 80 years, it should make us shudder. · 39 minutes ago

    • #69
  10. Profile Photo Member
    @WesternChauvinist
    Nick Stuart

    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 arenotin session? Incentivize them to wrap things up. 

    I’ve always thought legislators should be forced into public housing while in DC. Preferably in shared rooms.

    • #70
  11. Profile Photo Member
    @WesternChauvinist
    raycon and lindacon: …

    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. 

    Amen. I was going to put it in terms of “self-restraint” and “delayed gratification,” but we’re thinking the same way.

    • #71
  12. Profile Photo Member
    @WesternChauvinist

    We’ve had our congressional rep since 2006 here in Colorado Springs. And he’s gotten exactly zero legislation passed (according to last year’s opposition campaign ads) in his time there. Which is jes the way we like ‘im! And probably why we reelected him — again.

    To too many people, conservatism/Republicanism has come to mean “holding steady,” or maintaining the (newest assault to liberty by the Left) status quo — “This is the line of death! Cross this line and you die… Okay, this (new, advanced) line is the line of death! Cross this line…). When, if the true behaviors of conservatism and principles of limited government are understood, drastic (revolutionary, even) action is needed to reduce and eliminate the bureaucracy that threatens our liberty.  

    …Or, we can just wait for the collapse.

    It’s not that I think congressional term limits are a bad idea; it’s that I don’t think they’re worth the effort until we’ve crushed Leviathan under the heel of the (a godly) people. It’s a question of return on investment, and, as it stands, it seems pretty low, if not negative.

    • #72
  13. Profile Photo Member
    @BereketKelile
    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.

    • #73
  14. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Macduff
    Butters: Completely agree, no politician is indispensable.

    The permanent DC ruling class needs to end. The problem is most of them aren’t even in elected positions. Lois Lerner for example.

    OTOH it would seem difficult for a congressman to ever become a senator. They would need to decide to run within six years of becoming a House member, and then the seat would need to be up for election in that sixth year, if I’m reading the amendment correctly. · August 18, 2013 at 8:44am

    You’re assuming that their House and Senate engagements would need to be be consecutive, which is not the case. 

    • #74
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.