Earlier this week Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Ralph Norman introduced companion joint resolutions proposing a term limits amendment to the Constitution for members of Congress.
Under the proposal, Senators would be limited to two six-year terms. Representatives would be limited to three two-year terms.
According to the resolution, once a member of the Senate has completed three terms, that individual would be ineligible to be elected or appointed to the Senate. Likewise, once a member of the House completed three terms, that person would not be eligible for re-election to the House.
The language of the joint resolution is certainly straightforward, appealing, and exciting.
Yet, as was written in Ecclesiastes, "there is no new thing under the sun."
Cruz alone has introduced a term limits amendment resolution in each session of Congress since 2017, and calls for fixed term limits have peppered American history, even predating the Constitution's ratification.
The Articles of Confederation stated that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years, in any term of six years."
During the Philadelphia convention in 1787, the Virginia Plan as drafted by James Madison and submitted by Edmund Randolph included provisions that rendered members of the legislature ineligible for a period of time following fixed terms of service. Those provisions obviously did not make the final cut.
Thomas Jefferson expressed his immediate displeasure that the Constitution as originally ratified did not contain such a device. From a letter he wrote to Madison:
"The second feature I dislike, and greatly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office..." (The first feature he disliked, incidentally, was the absence of a Bill of Rights).
This concern was rapidly seized upon by Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina in the First Congress. Tucker proposed restrictions of three consecutive terms in an eight-year period for members of the House, and a limit of five consecutive one-year terms for members of the Senate. His measure was never taken up by the full House.
Concerns that those such as Jefferson and Tucker had may have been soothed as the tradition of rotation in office was well-respected by most members of Congress until the dawn of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century.
Many representatives observed the custom that a particular congressman from Illinois honored, which was to serve a single term in Congress and return home. Abraham Lincoln did not seek re-election following his term in the House of Representatives in the late 1840s. It's safe to say that rotation in office did not preclude him from further contributing to public affairs.
As such, the next significant effort to add a term limits amendment to the Constitution did not surface until 1947 when Sen. W. Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel of Texas introduced one that went nowhere. Other efforts in Congress, including some following the Watergate scandal in the 1970s and into the 1980s did not gain traction.
Term limits were not a major topic of discussion on the national stage until 1994 when Republican members of Congress Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey released their "Contract With America", a set of pledges to be acted upon in the event that the Republican Party won a majority in Congress. Among those was a promise to introduce "The Citizen Legislator Act", billed as a vote on term limits. Despite the overwhelming Republican victory in the '94 elections, a term limit amendment clearing two-thirds of Congress did not materialize.
In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in the case U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that individual states could not place term limits on their federal representatives; such limitations, the narrow majority of the Court said, require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution as outlined in Article V.
In the interim between Pappy, Newt, and Thornton, political careerism -- fueled by the overwhelming advantages of incumbency and longevity being rewarded with powerful committee chairmanships -- became a distinct feature of Congress.
Such an environment established a hierarchy of privilege and influence that has solidified. Insiders, wealthy corporations armed with lobbying divisions, and heavy-hitting political donors are granted exemptions and benefits that most citizens do not enjoy. Entrenched members of Congress in both major political parties award monies from the Treasury to preferred constituencies that can assist them in increasing power and in their primary objective: re-election.
Do the American people believe that those being re-elected are great statesmen and stateswomen whose primary interest is the betterment of the republic? Recent polling conducted by the Susquehanna Polling and Research Inc. (SP&R) firm revealed that 88 percent of Americans support term limits.
Term limits would limit power and passion, and force political careerists to find something else to do with their lives. Establishing fixed term limits through amendment would more perfectly align the Constitution with the philosophy and principles of limited government favored by the Founders by restoring the concept of rotation in office.
It would also result in the election of a greater number of true citizen-legislators who work not to secure their next victory, but the hard-won liberty of the people they represent.
As has been demonstrated throughout the history of the republic, even the best-intentioned efforts by a select few in Congress will not yield success.
Failing to give the states a chance to approve a concept that 88 percent of Americans favor is proof enough that Potomac Fever is incurable from within. An Article V convention is the surest route to presenting a sensible term limits amendment to the states for ratification, and Congress can't do a thing about it.
So while the latest effort by Sen. Cruz and others who valiantly attempt to impose term limits upon themselves and their colleagues is noble and fine, it will not result in anything tangible. It is we -- through the states -- who must get the job done. We're only 15 states away from forcing Congress to call a convention and a reckoning long overdue.
So let's get to work.
To join the fight to send career politicians packing, sign the petition below and volunteer to call an Article V convention:
