Constitutional Question: Term Limits

[Nitack]

I just had an interesting constitutional question come up in my head. Can voters in one state impose term limits for congressional seats for that state? On the surface the answer is no, these are federal level positions. But think about the fact that elections for congress are an internal state process. Could voters in a state like California not have a referendum that would not allow a candidate to represent the state in Congress for more than a set number of years? Could they simply set it up in such a way that after a certain number of years the politician could no longer be on the ballot?

This line of thinking stems from the line of reasoning that one of our biggest problems in Washington DC is the concept of a Career politician. People who have very good reason not to make the hard choices that are best for the country and instead keep pandering to special interest groups in order to keep getting elected. At the federal level, the only people with the ability to make term limits happen are the ones who have every reason to oppose them. So I just thought of a way to get it done with out them.

Thoughts?

[lemit]

In 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that the states could not impose term limits. The court held an Arkansas law in violation of Article I, Section 5, Clause 1, which says "Each house shall be the judge of the . . . qualifications of its own members . . . ."

Although there have been periodic attempts to impose congressional term limits by constitutional amendment, those have all been fatally flawed by simple logic: they have all been proposed by the part out of power, which lacked the votes to pass them. Once the party gained power, it lost interest in limiting that power.

I do not remember any attempt to use constitutional amendment to delegate term limit powers to the states. I could imagine 14th Amendment problems for any such attempt, but that's just my opinion.

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by lemit

In 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that the states could not impose term limits.

Wow. Five to four is a close decision. Nice find on SCOTUS history, lemit.


U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded that:

“Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ... Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people.”

He further noted that sustaining Amendment 73 would result in "a patchwork of state qualifications" for U.S. Representatives, and described that consequence as inconsistent with "the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure." Concurring, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the amendment would "interfere" with the "relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government."

Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, countered that the Constitution's authority depends on "the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole," and argued that on the question of whether the qualifications clause is exclusive, "The Constitution is simply silent...And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people."

[lemit]

Thanks for the save, Infinite. I usually start with Wiki, but decided to use other, untested sources (which I misread). I wish I had explored that date. I ignored my memory of the ruling and went with what I thought I was seeing.

The fact that the decision was rendered by the Rehnquist Court is significant, since it was a states' rights court.

I really do know how to do legal research. Next time I'll try to prove it.

Again, thanks.

--lemit

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Nitack

I just had an interesting constitutional question come up in my head. Can voters in one state impose term limits for congressional seats for that state?

Lemit and IN cover the legal status of State Legislatures imposing term limits on congresspeople well, I think. In short, they can’t.

Practically, however, voters in any US state have the power to effectively impose term limits of any length at any time simply by voting their congresspeople out of office. The political major parties – Democratic and Republican – can make this more difficult, by discouraging the opposition of in-office candidates in their primary elections, but not prevent it.

Usually, however, voters are disinclined from voting against senior congresspeople, because they are more effective than junior members at securing federal money and other resources for the people of the states they represent. Though some of this is due to their greater experience, much of it is codified in the rules of the two houses, which grant membership and chairmanship on the various House and Senate committees on the basis of seniority (number of years in office). Committees are important, because these same rules require legislation to be referred to and evaluated by them, and because access to many kinds of information is restricted to the members of certain committees.

As long as House and Senate rules favor seniority, I don’t think voters will be inclined to vote for new candidates for Congress over old, except in cases where the new is much more attractive to voters than the old, or the old the subject of some egregious scandal. The only situation where I can imagine these rules being substantially revised would be one in which majorities in one or both houses would benefit from the changes, such as situation where a majority are junior members.

[TheBigDog]

I have long enjoyed the idea of a Constitutional Amendment which would prevent consecutive terms of office. The idea is to keep those actively serving from actively campaigning (pipe dream). I would also like to see a two year budget cycle to match the election cycle.

Bill

[lemit]

I'm not sure about the learning curve of Congress. Seniority is, of course, important. Does anybody around here live in a state with severe term limits on its legislature? Does the legislature seem more inept than might otherwise be expected? (Yes, I know that's a question that invites a lot of cynical responses.)

Our local member of Congress is a rookie and has told me that the next election campaign had begun a week before the first day of this session. I suspect that with seniority comes experience in campaigning, support that goes to proven winners, and an ability to do work beyond the task of re-election.

Governance, that work Congress members are supposed to be doing instead of their constant work at re-election, is complicated. Shouldn't we have the same expectation of Congressional expertise that we have of other complicated studies?

Should we expect the journalists who cover government to spend a severely limited time doing so? Should we expect political science professors (and maybe all professors) to recuse themselves after no more than a dozen years? And what about our stale, out-of-touch judges? If we need fresh ideas and fresh thinking, then we need it in those who report and analyze and judge.

I think the question of term limits might be less simple than it seems. Having observed politics for over 40 years, I don't think I like term limits, but then I've been observing too long. The question of term limits should only be addressed to people who've been studying politics and law less than 12 years.

--lemit

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by lemit

I think the question of term limits might be less simple than it seems. Having observed politics for over 40 years, I don't think I like term limits, but then I've been observing too long. The question of term limits should only be addressed to people who've been studying politics and law less than 12 years.

--lemit

Excellent point! We have both exceeded out thinking limit on this (and probably most) issues.

[TheFaithfulStone]

We have consecutive term-limits for state legislators and Senators in my state, and it was the worst damn mistake we've ever made I think.

Eg: Corrupt state officials used to "sit" on their seats, and use those particular seats to work their nasty corruption - now, a corrupt senator from say.. the Northeast corner of the state needs to get elected to a wider office (like, say governor) to continue to receive his kickbacks. Furthermore, all of the people who used to hold lucrative state senate jobs now need to hold lucrative state bureaucracy jobs - so jobs like "Assistant Vice Administrator For Programs" which used to go to career technocrats or experts now go to political appointees. It also created an entire array of "charities" whose officers are made up entirely of ex-state officials, biding their time until they can either run again, or are offered a more "lucrative" state position by the next administration. After said person has finished the requisite "time out" from being a state senator, they are normally immediately elected as a state legislator (or maybe as senator again.)

In any case, the effect was that we expanded the "good ol' boy" system to include formerly "expert" positions like State Education Director.

Politicians are like zombies - they spread exponentially, and once they get their teeth into something, it's not long before it's zombified as well.

tfs