“Throw the bums out!” we often hear in reference to
Congress.
The sentiment expresses frustration, even rage, at the failings of our nation’s legislative branch. It also declares a means of addressing those failings by voting congressmen out of office.
But what if the bums were constitutionally required to leave, regardless of election results? That’s what
some in the 118th Congress have proposed
.
Rep. Ralph Norman
(R-SC) and
Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-TX) introduced last week constitutional amendments imposing term limits on Congress. This is not the first time in the modern era that term limits have been proposed; the House voted on a similar proposal several times between 1995 and 1997.
The potential amendment failed then as it should now. This is not to say its supporters don’t have a good point. Congress is by far the most broken of our government’s three branches. Still, the Constitution’s Framers were wise not to impose term limits on the nation’s legislative branch for reasons laid out in The Federalist Papers — Hamilton, Madison, and Jay’s definitive defense of our nation’s governing document.
For one, a term limit undermines Congress’s capacity to legislate well. This point presents no small problem. After all, Congress’s primary and essential job is lawmaking. Federalist 62 mentions the need in congressmen for a “due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation.” Good legislation involves a kind of art, one that understands a law’s proper object (the goals of achieving the people’s safety and happiness) as well as its principles (how to write the law so that its application achieves those goals).
One does not simply wake up with this skill fully formed. It takes talent and experience. Federalist 62 goes on to affirm this point, noting, “It is not possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust.”
Even with today’s career politicians, we see a lack of knowledge and skill in lawmaking. Congress has delegated much of the real legislating to the bureaucracy, leaving its members little practice to cultivate the legislative art. Many in Congress instead spend their time investigating the executive branch or putting forward bills that are nothing more than glorified press releases meant to signal to constituents or donors their fidelity to a partisan tribe. And when Congress does try to seriously legislate, like in the 2010
Affordable Care Act
(Obamacare), its lack of skill manifests in legislation written in embarrassingly bad ways.
But to impose term limits only would increase the incompetence, giving less motive or time for Congress to reform itself on this front.
A second reason term limits would do more harm than good is that they would strengthen both the administrative state’s and special interests’ grip on Washington. Already, both hold too much power over legislating and executing national policy. Imposing term limits on Congress would weaken its independence even more, both in measure and in permanence. Bureaucrats and powerful interests could more easily outsmart and outlast any of our lawmakers’ short-lived, inadequate attempts to act with strength and independence. To be sure, the potential that a member of Congress could last in office for a long time is far from enough to reclaim the institution’s proper powers. But it is a needed prerequisite.
Finally, term limits ultimately disrespect rule by the people. Proponents typically argue that we need some way to remove the career entrenched politicians. But we have a better one: elections. We live in a republic — a government by, for, and of the people. As Federalist 51 says, “a dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government.”
Term limits
deny the people the full choice of representatives, thereby calling the people inadequate to the task of self-governing.
Congress has its problems. Term limits are an understandable, frustrated response to them. But, however well-intentioned, it is bad medicine that will make the patient (and our country) worse, not better.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.
