Term limits — Limit abuse
Dear Editor,

We all learned, presumably, in grade school civics class that our US Government terms of Service are 2, 4, and 6 years for House of Representatives, presidency, and Senate, respectively. Therefore, we must ask why then are so many elected officials serving well beyond these limits?

This debate harkens back to the dialogue expressed in Federalists and Anti-Federalists Papers (mid 1780’s) when our Founding Fathers debated this very question. In Federalists Paper #72 (drafted by Alexander Hamilton, 1788) he posited several negative aspects that limiting terms of service would produce: 1) limited experience in office, 2) limited stability, 3) promote the importance of unelected “staff,” and 4) encourage the occupant to engage in unsavory conduct.

Of course, the Anti-Federalist view (Brutus No. 11 — possibly written by M. Smith, R. Yates or J. Williams) held a contrary view suggesting reelections of the same person portended a concentration of power that disadvantages the Citizenry.

When considering the duration of terms of both Chambers of Congress, the Founding Fathers argued their terms should largely be consistent with the Articles of Confederation.

Let me offer a different view. It is this author’s opinion that the terms of limits structure actually argue for term limits. By way of illustration, only the House can originate legislation for taxation (revenue). Therefore, House members’ length of terms is only two (2) years. Important, why? It is important because it reflects the “sensitivity” and the impact that taxation has upon the citizenry.

Staying in office for a “lifetime,” seen today with certain members, desensitizes that member to the impact of their decisions. The Senate, on the other hand, can take a “longer view” (6 years) to debate the merits of the taxation matter to the needs of the Country.

Having a member of Congress in office for long durations may certainly add to experience and perceived stability. But such duration will most certainly amplify opportunity for unsavory conduct. This thought is corroborated in Federalist #52 (likely by Madison) that “… it is a received and well-founded maxim, that where other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration … .”

There is little doubt that this can be seen in “today’s” Congress where petty infighting has all but stymied our Government.

Limit their terms and limit the abuse.