Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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:
- Establish Congressional Term Limits
- Repeal the 17th Amendment and Restore the Senate
- Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
- Limit Federal Spending
- Limit Federal Taxing
- Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
- Promote Free Enterprise
- Protect Private Property
- Grant States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
- Grant States Authority to Check Congress
- Protect the Vote
(While these are Levin’s suggestions, he has stated that others could certainly be proposed.)
Published in General
Just bought this book on Saturday and yes I’d like term limits. Also, there should be term limits on regular “working” folks doing the day to day paperwork in the government. But then, if we could do what this book suggests, there would not be so many of those regular folks to be concerned about.
I think it is a great idea. The problem is that congressmen and senators get too acclimated to a DC style and point of view that tears them away from the people they are representing and the promises they made in order to get there. I need only think of the GOP to illustrate this. The entrenched members of the new Republican majority band together to thwart the powerful demand for stopping Obama and reversing the damage he had already done. So what happened: sclerosis. They smothered the spirit to overturn Obamacare and the massive growth of the size and reach of the federal government.
I’m working my way through the book now, and I like what I’m seeing. Years ago, I was against term limits, reasoning that the best term limit was the vote. At some point, however, we should come to terms with the reality that we have a permanent governing class whose interests run counter to our own and who increasingly rule against the consent of the governed. Term limits strike me as a vital and necessary step to restoring the principles of limited, self government that animated the Founders.
I need to read the book, but I agree with term limits. It would also help with the system of seniority they have in place. We elect our representatives and I can never understand why they don’t all have equal say/power. You are or, are not, a senator. We don’t elect them as junior senators or something. This penalizes states for getting rid of the bad ones, too. Why have so many just accepted their labels as ‘freshmen’? I don’t read about these freshmen in the Constitution. Rand and Cruz have broken out of this mold to a certain extent, but are they working behind the scenes to change Republican ‘rules’?
This is an excellent point I hadn’t thought about.
I found that point interesting too. One reason term limits wasn’t in the Constitution, even though they talked about it, was they didn’t think in terms of a professional politician. People held jobs in the private sector and once in a while served in the public sector, only to return to their jobs. Many even kept their private sector jobs while in office. That would be an excellent thing for all of them to do! Then they’d really be affected by their stupid policies.
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.
The bureaucracy is the problem and not Congress per se. Yes, Congress empowered the bureaucracy to do things without oversight. There is the entire field of Administrative Law as a consequence. But it is the lack of oversight that is the problem and not term limits.
Unless the bureaucracy itself is tamed term limits will only serve to further empower the permanent bureaucracy and the lobbying class. This is what has happened in California and it will happen elsewhere. I would ask Levin to read John Marini’s very insightful and almost prescient book on bureaucracy and to stop advocating what George Will wanted in the early 90s.
A recent piece by Marini on the transformation of Congress from its Constitutional purpose can be found here. The problem isn’t that Congress is over reaching its own power levels with the passage of Obama Care and the Patriot Act etc. It is that those acts have created powerful and enduring bureaucracies that will survive any “term limits.”
It would be better to limit how long people can serve in the public sector period than limit Congress specifically.
If one thinks that the DC ruling class is Congress, one hasn’t been paying attention to the IRS scandal or other scandals lately. The bureaucracy has openly defied and lied to Congress and the institution is completely unable to do anything about it.
Unless the bureaucracy itself is tamed term limits will only serve to further empower the permanent bureaucracy and the lobbying class. This is what has happened in California and it will happen elsewhere. I would ask Levin to read John Marini’s very insightful and almost prescient book on bureaucracy and to stop advocating what George Will wanted in the early 90s.
A recent piece by Marini on the transformation of Congress from its Constitutional purpose can be found here. The problem isn’t that Congress is over reaching its own power levels with the passage of Oba…
It would be better to limit how long people can serve in the public sector period than limit Congress specifically. ·2 minutes ago
This- not forgetting their SWAT teams. The die was cast with the IRS and it should be our main target. Flat or Fair tax- repeal of 16th
D.C., great minds think alike. I didn’t mention this in my criticism but it is one more piece of evidence that supports my disappointment.
These clever ideas that conservatives come up with never seem to get the vetting they need. All they have to do is look at California to see how it worked out.
Term limits have been a failure. They were proposed for the same reasons and what happened was the “institutional memory” moved from the capitol to the lobbyists’ office.
I think that term limits will create a Congress full of puppets who don’t know how the process works and will be controlled by K Street. However few good long-term members there are today will become even fewer. Don’t be deceived, you will be disappointed in the quality of the members.
I don’t think this project is difficult because it’s important because it’s a bad idea and a waste of resources. Instead of looking for shortcuts and fool-proof solutions we need to do the hard work of introducing Americans to the Founders’ vision of gov’t and ensuring this movement continues.
I’m not necessarily opposed to term limits, but I don’t think they will do much to break up the permanent political class. Consider the career of Rahm Emmanuel: White House advisor under Clinton, parlayed into a lucrative job at one of the Fannies, a stint in Congress, White House Chief-of-Staff, and now Mayor of Chicago. After that? Maybe President Michelle will let tap him to be HHS Secretary.
He would have risen through the ranks of the ruling class with or without term limits.
Levin goes too far. Tailored from Article V of the Articles of Confederation:
Eric Hines
I haven’t yet read the book, but I would go farther. I would amend the Constitution so that each year one state votes on whether or not to remain in the union. Every year, one state would decide upon whether it wishes to remain in the union or secede and negotiate treaties as a sovereign nation with the remaining union. Every 50 years, then, every state would have this opportunity. If the union remains intact, it would indeed mean the governed have given their consent. Presently, “consent of the governed” is an empty and meaningless phrase, as there exists no mechanism to withdraw consent. Consent which may not be withdrawn is no consent at all.
Bereket is right. The problem isn’t in Congress -the problem isn’t in the Bureaucracy. The problem is that the Federal Government does so much -and it does everything it does because the people want it. Rotating warm bodies in the legislature isn’t going to fix that -the new members will vote the same way as the old members because both are responding to electoral pressure. Term limits might exacerbate the problem by moving the source of all information to the Bureaucracy -which is a principal-agent problem waiting to happen.
My standing solution is to triple the size of the House (which doesn’t require an amendment). Smaller House seats will be easier to contest, and it is much harder to buy-off (in the legal manner) 751 members instead of 417. Finally, 1500 House members might even be able to divide up the work a bit more so that they can do more oversight of the bureaucracy, or even internalize some of the previously delegated functions (at this point, I am of course dreaming).
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.
Nathaniel — does it help that the “fix” Levin is proposing involves several amendments to unravel the bureaucracy? This is just one piece. He’s going for comprehensive change which didn’t happen in California .
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 am a Mark Levin fan and I haven’t read this latest book, but the idea that we solve our self inflicted wounds with more laws/amendments is a lazy fool’s pursuit.
Bereket’s Member Feed post summarizes the problem as best I’ve seen. The problem isn’t the Constitution – the problem is us.
Bereket’s Member Feed post summarizes the problem as best I’ve seen. The problem isn’t the Constitution – the problem is us. ·5 minutes ago
I think what the amendments that Levin is proposing do, actually, is specifically pare back the powers and structure of the federal government, across the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, to the limits envisioned by the Framers. I haven’t seen any other remedies yield the results we need at this point and we are fast running out of options.
Mark isn’t saying the problem is the Constitution. Quite the opposite. But the bureaucratic wall is so massive that it must be dismantled so the people can be free. Term limits is just one section of that wall.
Bereket’s Member Feed post summarizes the problem as best I’ve seen. The problem isn’t the Constitution – the problem is us. ·5 minutes ago
I think what the amendments that Levin is proposing do, actually, is specifically pare back the powers and structure of the federal government, across the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, to the limits envisioned by the Framers. I haven’t seen any other remedies yield the results we need at this point and we are fast running out of options. ·18 minutes ago
Dave, I trust your insight since you are reading the book. I will ask you though: What does the 10th Amendment do? What is inadequate about the 10th or the remainder of the Bill of Rights?
My thought is that there is nothing wrong with them. What is wrong is our lack of motivation to get off our butts, hold our legislators accountable, run for office ourselves, or work to support those that will.
Unexpected consequences are a two-way road: what are the unexpected consequences of term limits?
If we were to limit each Congressman to, say, two terms, half of our Representatives would be trying to curry favor with lobbying groups and big business in the hopes of landing a cushy job once forced out of office. Is that really better than the status quo?
You would almost certainly get 50 votes in favor. Why would any state want to leave the union alone? However bad it is, all of those problems would follow the seceding state and they would lose the relations with their neighbors, the protection of the US Military, et cetera.
States would be more willing to secede as a group than as individuals.
Mark Levin is qualified to critique the faults with our current government, but we continue to ignore the problem. A roving band of communist marauders didn’t ride in during the night and take over our government and enslave us.
There are well documented pockets of vote fraud, but the vast majority our elections are valid and as you correctly note in the OP we re-elect incumbents with shocking repetition.
We elected this government, we blessed the bureaucracy, we are getting our federal entitlement goodies, and salve for our guilt about ‘those less fortunate’ funded through debt charged to our children.
We did this, nobody else. The first step in solving any problem is admitting it exists. The problem isn’t the Constitution and the solution isn’t a basket full of amendments. The problem is in the mirror (including mine) and the sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we fix it.
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.
Dave, I trust your insight since you are reading the book. I will ask you though: What does the 10th Amendment do? What is inadequate about the 10th or the remainder of the Bill of Rights?
My thought is that there is nothing wrong with them. What is wrong is our lack of motivation to get off our butts, hold our legislators accountable, run for office ourselves, or work to support those that will. ·0 minutes ago
Nothing at all is inadequate about the Bill of Rights. They have, however, been systematically undermined and now they are blatantly ignored. Our government meets behind closed doors, conspiring against our consent, and then announces sweeping societal changes in contravention of the Bill of Rights, with (in the case of Obamacare) the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, leaving the citizen increasingly powerless over his own fate and property.
The accountability of our legislators, judicial system, and our executive is now very much in question, our efforts notwithstanding. What Levin proposes is precisely that we get off our butts and restore limited government from the bottom up, rather than depending on a hopelessly unresponsive and corrupted federal government to reform itself.
Not having read the book, I don’t know what I think of his whole program. As a general rule, I consider the likelihood of any entire amendment program being implemented to be virtually zero, so if the plan requires 100% implementation, I’m against. That’s how we got the disaster that was Obamacare.
Specific to the bureaucracy, the question is why the bureaucracy exists, and whether the amendments will solve that problem.
I follow James Q. Wilson -the bureaucracy exists because the people want it. They do not punish Congress when it delegates, they accept the dictates of the agencies as law, they are against the agencies as a whole -but in favor of all of them individually. Members of Congress prefer to shuffle decisionmaking onto the agencies, and the people don’t object. They elect Presidents who run on legislative policy platforms which will be implemented by the agencies.
Only very impressive amendments will be anything more than parchment protections against those incentives. We already ignore whole swathes of the Constitution. Why expect differently?
Nothing at all is inadequate about the Bill of Rights. They have, however, been systematically undermined and now they are blatantly ignored.
What Levin proposes is precisely that we get off our butts and restore limited government from the bottom up, rather than depending on a hopelessly unresponsive and corrupted federal government to reform itself. ·1 minute ago
I don’t disagree (won’t speak for Brent), but if governments ignore the current Constitution with impunity, what will stop them ignoring the new one? Rotation in office? Latin America has mandated rotation in office, they still had terrible government for decades.
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.
Sure, get off our duffs and reign in government -but words on paper won’t achieve anything.
Brent– you’re talking about changing hearts and minds. Yes, very necessary, and I don’t know any true conservatives who aren’t trying to do that. But when it comes to change, to fixing a broken system, it can be two pronged. In fact, it needs to be. If the colonists who wanted to break from England waited for the hearts of a majority of the colonists to change and reject their love of the monarchy, we would never have the USA. Only a third really understood the problems and were willing to fight. They did, and they made revolutionary changes. We should too. What is amazing is that at the same time there was the Great Awakening happening. Preachers were going forth to proclaim truth. This is what you’re speaking to, I think. And it must happen too, I believe. So let us take practical steps as Levin is doing and seek to change the system as well as the culture by the means of the Gospel of truth. Different people will have different callings in that venture, but we should encourage and empower both in the effort. At least that’s what think, if that makes any sense .