It is common knowledge that each elected American president has a two-term limit, with each term consisting of four years in office. Members of Congress also serve in terms, with terms in the House of Representatives lasting two years and terms in the Senate lasting six years. However, members of Congress are not constrained to term limits and are able to serve for as many terms as they would like, given that they are reelected. Opinions among Americans on whether or not term-limits should be imposed on Congress are seemingly cut and dry. In a 2013 Gallup poll, most Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in the poll’s sample size said that they would vote in favor of Congressional term-limits if given the opportunity (Saad).
Despite political affiliation, a majority of Americans polled stated they would vote for the institution of term-limits (Saad).
In this piece, I will briefly look at the history of the American federal term-limit as well as analyze the stances of those who are for Congressional term-limits and those who oppose it.
The most famous limit placed on an American elected federal official is probably the two-term limit placed upon the president, which is enforced by the 22nd Amendment. This Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1951, in response to former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unprecedented three-term presidency (N.C.C. Staff). Even though contesting and amending the Constitution has become a key aspect of American democracy, the support of a two-term limit remains strong to this day. Former President Donald Trump’s statements that he would “negotiate” his way to a third term in 2024 if he were to win in the 2020 election shocked the country, including Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, who urged others to take these statements seriously (Solender). The modern reaction to even the notion of changing the presidential term limit demonstrates how much term-limits are valued in American democracy. More so, the fact that the presidential term-limit is set by an amendment to the Constitution indicates that setting limits on how long elected officials can stay in office is itself a principle of American democracy.
That being said, many Americans believe that Congress members should be limited in how many terms they can run. A 2018 Brookings article states that 74% of likely voters believe that there should be Congressional term-limits (Burgat). This argument is rooted in the same ideals that influenced the addition of the 22nd Amendment. Many Americans believe that a lack of term-limits is undemocratic. U.S. Term Limits, a group advocating for the institution of term-limits in all levels of government, says on the ‘About’ page of their website that setting term-limits allows for the “citizen legislator” to reduce external influence in Congress and introduce new ideas, just as the Founding Fathers had intended (“About”). This reference to the Founding Fathers’ intentions feels similar to the argument made for setting term limits for the U.S. president. As George Washington had only run for two terms and had refused to run a third upon request, he had set the precedent that his successors followed up until FDR’s presidency. The call to limit how long a politician can hold Congressional office reflects the sentiment that term-limits are one of the core restrictions that allow democracy to function.
Despite popular opinion, other Americans are less eager to place these restrictions on Congress. One argument made in opposition to the proposal of Congressional term limits is that lawmaking requires prior experience due to its complex nature and that it would be unwise to leave Americans in the hands of inexperienced lawmakers (Burgat). This makes sense as unlike with other professions, lawmaking is a career where experience can only truly be gained by performing the task in a setting where there are consequences. However, one cannot gain that experience unless they are able to work in a real-world setting where there are consequences. Another argument against imposing Congressional term-limits is that if Congress members know they can only hold their positions for a limited period of time, they might be less inclined to reject outward influences from lobbyist groups and to form important work relationships between other members of Congress, which help legislation to pass (Burgat). While arguments like these are legitimate in their concerns and logic, they can only represent hypothetical situations.
Even though there is strong demand for term-limits to be placed on members of Congress, senators and representatives remain able to serve unlimited terms. While both sides maintain legitimate arguments and sentiments, neither can accurately determine what a future where term-limits are placed on Congress would look like. What both sides can do is acknowledge the ever-changing needs of America as a democratic nation and use their best judgments to decide what is best for the American people.
Sources:
“About.” U.S. Term Limits, 30 Apr. 2018, www.termlimits.com/about/.
Burgat, Casey. “Five Reasons to Oppose Congressional Term Limits.” Brookings, Brookings, 18 Jan. 2018, www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/.
N.C.C. Staff. “FDR’s Third-Term Election and the 22nd Amendment.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.org, constitutioncenter.org/blog/fdrs-third-term-decision-and-the-22nd-amendment.
Saad, Lydia. “Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 14 Jan. 2021, news.gallup.com/poll/159881/americans-call-term-limits-end-electoral-college.aspx.
Solender, Andrew. “Trump Says He Will ‘Negotiate’ Third Term Because He’s ‘Entitled’ To It.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 13 Sept. 2020, www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/13/trump-says-he-will-negotiate-third-term-because-hes-entitled-to-it/?sh=2414c95a287c.
Given that one of the major reasons why the government we have today was made was to be the opposite of the monarchy America used to be under the rule of, it is interesting that a Congressperson can maintain their position for so long. If they are elected earlier on in their life, say before they turn 40, they could potentially be in office for decades. I understand how term limits could possibly prevent the people from electing who they really want in office and that it could keep some very effective Congresspeople from making positive change, so one alternative could be to have an age cap on public office.
Having an age cap on some positions in government is not necessarily about the health of the individual or about their physical fitness to work a full schedule. It is more so about their mental fitness to be in a position of such importance and about the gradual introduction of change into politics to keep things moving forward (Frank). An overwhelming amount of government leaders are in their late sixties and older, which means that they are preventing someone who could be decades younger with a wealth of new ideas from serving the people. While experience is very valuable, especially when one’s job touches the lives of so many people, it is also valuable to have diversity and change. In recent years, newly elected members of Congress have brought a previously unrecorded amount of diversity in terms of race, gender, and age to the government. This allows young and minority voices to be heard far more than they have ever been in the past. Given that a democracy is made to represent the ideas and values of the people, it should be a representation of all the people, not just the majority.
Implementing some sort of restriction to keep congresspeople from being in office for so long that they do more harm than good for democracy could be a valuable change in the current political process, but it will not likely come without a fight. Despite the difficulty, removing older officials from office has potential to allow a fresher take on politics and to create a government body more in touch with the generations who will be most impacted by their decisions.
Frank, Marshall. “Impose Term Limits On Our Leaders, On The Basis Of Age: Today’s Talker”. USA TODAY, 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/22/term-age-limits-needed-presidents-supreme-court-congress-talker/3539673002/. Accessed 11 Feb 2021.
I like how you include reasons for and against term limits in Congress. Personally, I have never really thought about the negatives of term limits in Congress until I read your blog.
Some interesting that I learned while researching this topic were that the average age of a house member is 57.6 years old and the average age of a senator is 62.9 years old. [1] This shows, especially for senators, that the vast majority would be considered to have reached the age of retirement in any other job. While experience is important, younger senators would not be able to get the experience necessary if few Senate seats change hands each election. Currently, there are not any senators who are in their 30s. This prevents new voices from having a significant voice in new laws. In addition, if a large portion of the older senators were to leave office at around the same time, a large group of new senators would come in all at once with less experience and connections.
That being said, I believe term limits would only be effective if they were more than 3 or 4 terms. A large portion of the job requires Senators to make long-term connections. This is important to gain support for a law or bill. These connections would be less possible if the term limit were set at 2 terms. In addition, it is also possible that Congress would only represent the younger generations. While it would ensure that the composition of Congress is constantly changing, it would effectively limit representation for certain demographics. This would harm democracy because Congress wouldn’t actually represent the population.
Especially in the last couple of decades, Congress has become increasingly more partisan. Many votes are cast based on party lines. This is problematic because it leads to both political parties doing whatever they have to do to gain and retain Congress seats to win control of the branch. This negatively impacts democracy as the people’s voices are not truly being heard if the people representing them are just going to vote along preexisting party lines. Whether or not term limits would help this situation is entirely up to speculation. It is entirely possible that this could get worse because new congress members may want to ensure they are elected or reelected by only voting along party lines to appease supporters of their party. However, it could also force them to form connections to get the votes necessary to pass laws during their limited time in office.
1. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45583.pdf
I have never considered the question that wether members of congress should have term limits. Overall, I agree with your idea that “What both sides can do is acknowledge the ever-changing needs of America as a democratic nation and use their best judgments to decide what is best for the American people”.
This is indeed a controversial topic. If keeping the unlimited term for congress member, The problem of corruption may goes wider. The corruption may persist for a long time, until they were found. According to CNN Politics, a republic senator named Duncan Hunter and his wife indicted in use of campaign funds for personal expenses for nearly eight years until they been found. Hunter’s campaign credit card allowed the family to take lavish vacations that they could not afford, The trips that using campaign funds including but not limited to a 2015 family vacation in Italy for Thanksgiving which spending totaling more than $14,000; an April vacation in Hawaii costing $6,500; and a $3,700 trip to Las Vegas and Boise in July 2015. These corruption begin in 2010 and eventually be found in 2018.
However, there might be some benefits for unlimited term fo congress senators. First of all, “power tends to corrupt,” if power is limited, the corruption is limited. Moreover, Years of accumulated working experience can help America achieve greater progress in the future. With such a large and complicated federal bureaucracy, members are most effective. They can resistant to special interests when they are most knowledgeable. The system, like 18-year terms for Justices, would give a one-term President two appointments to the Court and a two-term President four appointments. It could lower the stakes in individual confirmation fights and reduce polarization on the Court. It could also help the Court stabilized in larger shifts in society.
Rep. Duncan Hunter and his wife indicted in use of campaign funds for personal expenses, Laura Jarrett and Maeve Reston, August 22, 2018
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/duncan-hunter-campaign-charges/index.html
Should there be term limits for members of Congress and the Supreme Court?
February 27, 2016 , Nicandro Iannacci
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/should-there-be-term-limits-for-members-of-congress-and-the-supreme-court
Term limits are very important to our lives here in America, the old men and women in our Government do not have the spunk that the younger upcoming congress and Senators with the knowledge that we need. Look at some of our congressmen and women that have been in office and have done nothing except collect our tax money to do nothing.