Disillusionment with Political Leadership

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Americans became in-creasingly disenchanted with their political leadership. In the view of many, the political system at all levels-local, state, and federal-had become ossified and unresponsive to the needs of average citizens. Critics portrayed a group of "fat cat"

politicians who cared more about their perks than the people they were supposedly representing, career politicians who had too much power and too much money to ever be defeated in an election. This warp-ing of the electoral process prompted many to call for limits on the number of terms a person could serve in a particular elected office. This paper will discuss the term limits movement and analyze whether the United States Congress should adopt such a system.

As of 1998, 18 states had adopted term limits. Most laws limited legislators to eight years in office, with some limits at six years and some as high as 12 years (National Conference of State Legislatures). Many states also passed laws that limited the number of terms for the Senators and Representatives they sent to Washington, but the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated those limita-tions in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton {1995).

The Court held that the Constitutional qualifications for Congress are "fixed," and thus can only be changed by a Constitu-tional amendment. An amendment requires a two-thirds vote from each house of Congress, then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (per Article V of the U.S

d by Washington would bring a dramatically different outlook to the business of government. "If one's career is in business, or health care, or education, and therefore is on the receiving end of federal rulemaking, one probably has a different perspective than if one is in Congress supervising those who make the rules" (Bandow). That perspective is lacking in today's Congress because citizen legislators do not have the resources needed to win an election under the current system. Any candidate who dares to challenge an incumbent will find an opponent with more campaign money, greater resources, and higher visibility. In the 1990 elections, only 9.1 percent of House members faced an opponent who raised at least half as much money as they had. Not surprisingly, 96 percent were re-elected. Incumbents further solidify their positions by directing "pork-barrel" spending to their districts or states (Elhauge 155). Opponents counter that voters do not really know what they want. They point to a paradox: "Why do the same voters who vote overwhelmingly for term limits also vote overwhelmingly to return their senior incumbents to office?" Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge counters that no paradox exists because voters are simply acti

Category: Government - D