When the Founding Fathers formed the present arrangement for the government of the United States, it was done with the best of intentions and under the presumption that moral and virtuous men would be elected to represent the people in Congress. Unfortunately, time has changed the way the United States government works. And there are some definite changes that must be made.
In the Constitution, there were no term limits set for any of the elected officials, be them Representatives, Senators or the President. Term limits were not instituted for the office of the President until 1951, and as of yet none have been set for either members of the two houses of Congress. And while in the early years of the United States this might not have been seen by some as such a big problem, today, it is becoming one. In those formative years, this country was made up of thirteen states that were all along one coast. Now the United States extends from one coast to the other and contains fifty states, and this has brought about an unseen crisis in the way the government is being run.
The men and women who go to Washington are sent there to represent the people and interests of their district. When an individual is running for office for the first time, they normally have direct contact with the voters of that district they are trying to represent. They listen to the needs of the people and what they want out of their representative in Washington. If they win the election, that person is more likely to do their best to represent their constituents in their first term in office. After two years, they run again, and if the people feel that they were represented well, they may just return the said person to office for a second term.
And herein lies the problem. Continuous election of a person to sit in Congress creates a lust for power and a distancing of oneself from the constituents of the district one represents. One objection that was made to the non-inclusion of term limits on representatives to Congress was made in a series of letters known as the Federalist Farmer. In letter 11, the author says that "in a government consisting of but a few members, elected for long periods, and far removed from the observation of the people, but few changes in the ordinary course of elections take place among the members; they become in some measure a fixed body, and often inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish and the fountain of corruption…Even good men in office, in time, imperceptibly lose sight of the people, and gradually fall into measures prejudicial to them."
Does this not sound at all familiar to the modern day reader? Congress has become so full of long time members that they have forgotten the people that they have come to represent. For example, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland District 5, which is not thirty-five minutes from Washington DC, barely campaigned in his district in the past election, save for some automated voice messages and campaign signs that didn't begin to emerge until shortly before November. There were no public rallies or meetings so he could get a feel for what the citizens of his district wanted. So how does he know what these people want and need? Does he get elected because he has his people in mind? Or does he retain his office because he gets enough party votes and he has just become a fixture to the people? So many of the House members have become so attached to the power they have in Washington DC that for the most part they have lost touch with their base at home. Sure, they put vast numbers of earmarks in bills for some utterly pointless project that they want done in their district and claim that it is for the people. And their constituents eat it up like gullible little fish. What the people fail to realize is that these little bits of pork that their representatives throw to them from Washington will most likely have very little effect or benefit to them in the long run. But it gets them to vote, and to the power hungry politician, that is all that matters.
So what is the solution to this problem of out of touch representatives? It is really quite simple: impose term limits upon them. This was a system that was previously set up in the Articles of Confederation, and was one of the rules that actually made sense, but was dropped when the Constitution was created. If one takes a look at this rule, however, they will see the genius behind it. The rule was that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years." This means that in a period of six years, you could be sent as a delegate three times, and then you had to sit out for the remainder. So, if a man was sent three years in a row, he was ineligible for the next three.
Why was this rule established? For the simple reason that the Founders knew that power corrupts. In Federalist Farmer 11, the author makes a very clear case for why there must be term limits imposed upon the representatives of the House. He readily admits that a rotation in office will exclude certain good men from office for a time, but it is hoped that there are other good men (and women in today's case) that will have the people's interests in mind, who can take the seat. However, there is good that comes from rotation in office and term limits. The author states two clear advantages. The first is that it helps to "guard against those pernicious connections, which usually grow up among men left to continue long periods in office…" Simply put, it puts a crimp on the political cabals that are likely to arise between members that might endanger the rights of the people. And the second advantage is that it helps to "increase the number of those who make the laws and return to their constituents; and thereby spread information, and preserve a spirit of activity and investigation among the people…" From these two advantages, a "balance of interests and exertions are preserved, and the ruinous measures of factions rendered more impracticable."
By making it impossible for one person to sit for term after term, the long term political alliances are bypassed and it helps to keep the people in touch with those whom they have sent to Washington to represent them and make the laws that affect their lives. Through this contact, the people can express either their delight or displeasure with the measures this person supported or did not support, and through this, the former lawmaker learns, and if they get the chance to go back, they hopefully know what they need to do differently. It is a win-win situation for both lawmaker and constituent, as well as for the nation as a whole.
Now, the question remains as to how would the American people go about affecting this type of radical change? They would have to call for a change to the Constitution by adding an amendment. Common sense would dictate that it could not be done as an amendment called for on the floor of the House of Representatives, because the men and women who sit there would never vote for, nor ratify, an amendment to the Constitution that curtails their power and their ability to hold onto that power for as long as they can get elected.
That leaves it up to the people of the United States to bring this type of Constitutional change about. As has been stated in previous posts, the American people retain the political authority in the United States, and the men and women who sit in Congress are only their elected delegates who are responsible to those people who put them there. The writers of the Constitution wrote in the provision in Article Five that the people of the United States can call upon their state governments to call a convention in which to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and if three-fourths of the states do this and the legislatures of those same states ratify the proposed amendment, it becomes law. This is the people's prerogative and their right.
When a government that was instituted to protect the people's right to life, liberty and property becomes in any way dangerous to them, it is the "Right of the People to alter or abolish it…" Now, the government of the United States has not become dangerous to the point of needing to abolish it and create a new one. That is not what one should take away from this. What one needs to understand is that it is the people's right to alter the government when they see that it is becoming dangerously powerful. And that is what is happening today. The government is expanding and is moving toward what it was not meant to be, and that is the ultimate political authority in this country. That alone rests with the people. It is the duty of the liberty loving citizens of these United States to step up into the role that was intended for them and let the government know who is really in charge. The government does not take the people seriously because the people don't take their role in government seriously. And it is time that that changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment