Getting Re-elected ‘Job One’ for Career Politicians

To The Editor:
Two things I believe bad for our nation are: Single-party dominance of both Congress and the White House. The second is career politicians in general and in the Congress in particular. I favor term limits.
The notion of limiting the number of terms congressmen and senators can serve, goes all the way back to the Articles of Confederation, which included language about it. But it didn’t make it into the Constitution, perhaps by oversight, but the framers had much to say on the matter:
Richard Henry Lee said, “regarding the lack of such limits, – most highly and dangerously oligarchic;” George Mason commented, “nothing is so essential to preservation of a Republic as a periodic rotation.” Their concerns were prophetic as we can see in today’s congressional excesses and corruption.
Bending to special interests and election-re-election funding by them, is but one item. Votes on legislation often aren’t in the interest of the nation, but in favor of pressure groups and/or political parties. But the idea of getting elected or re-elected is “job one” for today’s career politicians.
It seems the longer they hold office and amass power (as committee heads or party leaders) the more corrupt some of them become. Though their impact often affects us all, only a few of us can vote them out of office. Some form of term limits is needed to focus their priorities on the people, not retaining their offices.
Twenty-three states have approved term limits by ballot referendum (votes were two-to one for) but in May 1995 in the case, “U.S Term Limits Inc. vs. Thornton,” the Supreme Court ruled by a 5 to 4 vote that states may not impose term limits on their federal representatives or senators. Two six-year terms for senators, six two-year terms for representatives were the most often suggested limits. I think three terms for the latter are enough.
That Supreme Court decision pretty much leaves a constitutional amendment as a route with the usual two thirds vote of both Houses and ratification by 75 percent of state legislatures. Dream on. Can we see Congress imposing such limits? Career politicians saturate the place.
One other route may be allowed by the Constitution: That’s a national referendum to adopt a “peoples’” amendment. This obviates the usual route and Congress. Sounds good, but the catch here is, no mechanism is defined for such a route and doubtless Congress would get involved in planning (or opposing) one. It’s a Catch 22 of sorts. One objection to term limits: It may lead to gerrymandering of districts. That’s new? More likely opponents fear diminished influence peddling that fuels incumbency.
Framer James Wilson declared, “The Constitution cannot stand without the support of the people.” Indeed, it is after all, the peoples document. But today we see those who would discard it or at best “revise” it for modern times. Suffice it to say our constitutional protections against overbearing government are being eroded.
Those who favor big government like to accuse dissent over President Obama’s policies as racist. Or, as Bill Clinton recently warned, things like “tea party” rhetoric can lead to violence (like Oklahoma City.) Specious arguments, used as defense mechanisms to justify and protect political power and stifle descent.
It’s months away, but our vote in November may be our best weapon against loss of freedoms and more “Uncle Sam” in our lives. It is our “influence” tool against special interests. Part of our problem may be ourselves, either through apathy or expecting politicians to be all things to all people/interests. They are eager to comply, if it will get them elected.
BOB LOVELL
Court House