The concept of term limits is a pillar of the Convention of States movement. As it pertains to the correlation between time and power in Congress, permit me to relay a personal narrative.
I was born and raised in Dearborn, Michigan. My congressman was John Dingell. He was elected in 1955, the winner of a special election to fill the seat of his late father, also named John Dingell.
The senior Dingell had held the seat since 1933. John Dingell, Jr. retired from the House in 2015. His wife Debbie Dingell succeeded him and continues to hold office today. A Dingell has held the seat for a third of the history of the republic.
In the summer of 1993 I interned in Dingell’s district office in Dearborn. I did the same in Washington the next summer. Both were unforgettable experiences. Mr. Dingell, as he was called by his staff, was an affable and generous fellow. He was kind and displayed a cunning sense of humor.
One afternoon near the conclusion of my first internship, Mr. Dingell granted me an hour of his time to discuss my internship and whatever was on my mind. This was one-on-one, no holds barred.
“Ask me anything,” he said.
We discussed his career in politics, including presidents with whom he had worked (he was not so kind when it came to Ronald Reagan). He candidly described the toll that the political life had exacted on his first marriage.
Given his long career in the House, I asked if he had ever considered running for the Senate. Certainly he could have easily won a seat there. He let out a bark of mirth.
“I am not interested in a demotion," he said. This was a puzzling remark, until I remembered what I had learned during that first summer.
At that time, Mr. Dingell was chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The seniority he had built since 1955 led to the leadership position of a panel that was second in its power, prestige, and influence perhaps only to Ways and Means.
In addition to his sizable congressional staff, Dingell commanded a committee staff and counsel with subpoena power that, depending on the Congress, considered about half of the proposed legislation in the House.
Such power and influence over major aspects of law, industry, and the economy--attained in large part due to tenure in office--would have been abandoned had Dingell become a lowly freshman in the United States Senate. There I was, a 20-year old kid talking to one of the most powerful men in the country.
It was all very impressive but totally antithetical to limited, republican government.
The Framers of the Constitution did not envision such concentration and continuation of power in one person in the House, nor a seat being held by three people of the same surname for nearly a century. Otherwise, they never would have bothered George III in the first place.
Contrast Dingell with COS supporter and advocate Dr. Tom Coburn. He term-limited himself in the U.S. House and Senate. But most members of Congress are more interested in (as Dr. Coburn said) “securing their next election,” which is securing their power, air of indispensability, and curious financial enrichment.
Political careerism necessitates the need for an Article V Convention of States to consider a constitutional amendment that places term limits upon members of Congress.
The Framers of the Constitution revered the citizen-legislator (Cincinnatus returns to his plow) and assumed the continued observation of rotation in office.
As Mark Levin notes in his book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, the concept of frequent turnover in office gained favor during the American revolution and was often discussed by the Framers. He points to correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in December 1787 in which Jefferson expressed his disapproval of term limits being absent from the proposed Constitution.
Yet rotation in office was well-observed by members of Congress until 1901 and the dawn of the ill-named Progressive movement. To that point, most members of Congress did not seek reelection after one term, including a congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln.
As Lincoln demonstrated, rotation in office did not ban individuals from public affairs. Term limits would merely place a necessary restraint upon federal office.
Self term-limiting was also exhibited in the office of the presidency. Presidents faithfully adhered to the standard set by George Washington until Progressive icon Franklin D. Roosevelt obliterated it in 1940. This necessitated the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, which codified the two-term limit.
Like a horrible mutation, the inherent advantages of incumbency, the ability to direct gifts from the Treasury, and the amassing of power has fostered hundreds of mini-FDRs in Congress.
But don’t voters have several opportunities to boot them out? Technically, yes. Sections 2 and 3 of Article I delineate the terms for the House and Senate. But the inordinate advantages of incumbency and the laying of power are elegantly summarized in Levin’s book:
Through gerrymandering of House districts, patronage, a barrage of self-serving free and paid media, and fund-raising advantages, incumbents are able to extend their hold on federal office. Furthermore, incumbents often use their positions as lawmakers to promote federal spending and legal initiatives that benefit their personal longevity in office, making it increasingly difficult for successful electoral challenges…part of the unsustainable growth of the federal government can be attributed to members of Congress treating federal spending, borrowing, and taxing as a personal prerogative used to award funds and assign legal rights to various political and electoral constituencies and would-be constituencies…there is no denying that the instrumentalities of the federal government are used to build political constituencies and supporters—that is, to reshape the nature and mind-set of the electorate…Congress has become less a representative body as its members are more insulated.
Levin proposes that “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.”
Twelve years seems like a long time. It is certainly more than enough time to make mischief. But when placed against the seemingly never-ending tenures of past and present swamp dwellers, it is short indeed.
Had such a limit been in place, Dingell would have been finished in Congress in 1967. Ted Kennedy? Ineligible for reelection in 1974. Mitch McConnell would have been sent back to Kentucky in January 1997.
Term limits would force careerists to emulate Lincoln and find other outlets for their ambition. Establishing such limits will more perfectly align the Constitution with the philosophy and approach of the Founders by blunting careerism in Congress and mandating rotation in office.
Such an amendment will go far toward electing citizen-legislators such as Dr. Coburn, who worked not to secure their next election or viewed elected office as a promotion or demotion, but to secure and advance the hard-won liberty of the people.
