Essay on Term Limits In U S Government

Free Term Limits In U S Government papers

Television And Race
Television and Race

Race Televised: America s Babysitter At some point in the course of human events, America decided that the television was their Dali Lama, their cultural and spiritual leader. Overlooking its obvious entertainment based purpose, Americans have let the televisio

The 300 Spartans. Was It A Reliable Source Of Historical Information?
The film The 300 Spartans is the story of the Battle of Thermopylai , where the 300 strong personal guard of King Leonidas defended a mountain pass at Thermopylai so that Xerxes of Persia couldn t conquer Greece. As far as detailing how the events at Thermopylai went, The 300 Spartans was an accura

Term Limits in U.S. Government-

Mark P. Petracca's idea that "government should be kept as

near to the people as possible chiefly through frequent elections and

rotation-in-office" is quite common in early republican thought and

generally agreed upon by the America's revolutionary thinkers.

Although the debate over limiting legislative terms dates back to the

beginnings of political science, it was not until the 1990's that the

doctrine began to be taken seriously when voters started to approve

term limit initiatives (Sinclair 203). Petracca's statement captures

a significant aspect of the democratic process- that every citizen

retains the privilege to participate in the political system, yet his

inclusion of "rotation-in-office" can both support and hinder such a

privilege. This will be shown by discussing the views of America's

founders, term limits legislation in Washington State, California, and

Oklahoma, political mobilization of national groups, and the opinions

of congressmen concerning the matter.

Term limitation is not a strictly modern topic. Its roots

date back to the creation of Republican thought and democratic theory

of ancient Greece and Rome, and also aroused debates amongst the

founding fathers of the United States (Sinclair 14). For the most

part, the Antifederalists supported rotation-in-office because they

feared its elimination, paired with the extensive powers given to

Congress by the Constitution, would make the "federal rulers

...masters, not servants." On the other hand, the Federalists felt

that the separation of powers in the federalist system served as a

viable check on ambition and tyrannical government; therefore,

rotation seemed unnecessary and was not mentioned in the Constitution

(Peek 97).

Melancton Smith, of New York, is considered the

Antifederalist's most well-spoken and conscious supporter of

rotation-in-office. In a speech given in June of 1788 which called

for a constitutional amendment to solve the "evil" of the proposed

Senate, Smith endorsed the point that rotation-in-office could be used

as a check on the abuse of power and tyranny by proposing, rotation

...as the best possible mode of affecting a remedy. The amendment

will not only have the tendency to defeat any plots, which may be

formed against liberty and the authority of the state governments, but

will be the best means to extinguish the factions which often prevail,

and which are sometimes fatal in legislative bodies (Foley 23)." New

York's "Brutus" also advocated rotation in the Senate, but he did so

on grounds that more people would be given an opportunity to serve

their government instead of a select few with lifetime membership. He

felt that in addition to bringing a greater number of citizens forward

to serve their country, it would force those who had served to return

to their respective states and become more informed of the condition

and politics of their constituencies (Foley 25). Both Smith and Brutus

agreed that once an individual was elected to office his removal would

be difficult, except in the rare occurrence that his outright

misconduct would constitute grounds for dismissal. Sharing the

Antifederalist doctrine of the dangers of permanent government, Brutus

suggested that, "it would be wise to determine that a senator should

not be eligible after he had served for the period assigned by the

constitution for a certain number of years (Foley 26)."

Although John Adams was a devout Federalist, he maintained

that rotation, as well as frequent elections, would be necessary in

order to keep government as near to the people as possible. Adams

expressed these two beliefs in a speech given just before the American

Revolution in which he proposed holding annual elections of

representatives (Peek 101). He also compared men in a society with

rotation-in-office to bubbles on the sea which "rise,...break, and to

that sea return"; Adams later develops his thought by adding, "This

will teach them the great political virtues of humility, patience, and

moderation, without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast

of prey (Peek 102)." In response to the ideas of Melancton Smith, the

strongest opposition from the Federalists came from Alexander Hamilton

at the New York ratification convention. Hamilton, along with Roger

Sherman and Robert Livingston, developed three strong arguments

against implementing term limits in government: the people have a

right to judge who they will and will not elect to public office,

rotation reduces the incentives for political accountability, and

rotation deprives society of experienced public servants (Foley 28).

In general, the goals of all founders, despite their political

affiliation, aimed at preserving a close connection between

representatives and their constituencies. While the Antifederalists

believed that imposing term limits would create enhanced participation

in government, a check on tyrannical leaders, and greater

representation of the people, the Federalists theorized that the same

goals could be accomplished by the president serving a short term and

having congressman follow his actions (Foley 34).

Following the adoption of term limits in Colorado, California,

and Oklahoma in 1990, Washington State became the site of intensely

fought campaigning during 1991. A group calling itself LIMIT

(Legislative Initiative Mandating Incumbent Terms) drafted an

initiative called I-553 in the winter of 1990-1991. At the time I-553

was considered the most prohibitive term-limitation proposal of the

1990's because it limited legislatures to ten consecutive years in the

state legislature, with senators having two four-year terms and

representatives having three two-year terms. Senators and

representatives of the United States Congress would also be limited to

twelve consecutive years, two six-year terms and three two-year terms,

respectively. Most alarming to congressmen with greater tenure in

office, the initiative would take effect immediately and would be

retroactive, if passed (Cannon A4). Another initiative, I-522,

proposed eight year limits on state legislators and twelve years for

congressmen, and would have also placed restrictions on campaign

contribution, to which state party organization chairs quickly

announced their opposition. Due to the extreme animosity displayed

toward I-522, its backers withdrew their support and joined forces

with LIMIT. Following the I-553 proposal, LIMIT hastened to collect

well over two-hundred thousand signatures of support and the campaign

for passage began. Despite overwhelming endorsement by the general

public, the I-553 failed to pass on November 6, 1991 by a fifty-four

to forty-six percent margin. This sudden turnaround was credited to

then Speaker of the House Tom Foley, who would have been affected by

the initiative and thus, addressed the issue with conviction and

passion just days before the scheduled vote (Cannon A5).

On the ballot before California citizens in 1990 there were

two distinct term-limitation proposals- Proposition 131 and

Proposition 140. Under Proposition 131, drafted by Democrat John Van

de Kamp, office holders identified in the state constitution would be

restricted to two consecutive four-year terms, and elected officials

who had served their full term could sit out one term and be eligible

for the next (Benjamin 120). Proposition 140, authored by

conservative Republican Pete Schabarum, was targeted at "career

politicians" and contained far stricter term limit features than

Proposition 131. State assembly members were limited to three

two-year terms, and given a lifetime ban once their service was

completed (Benjamin 121). Advocates of Proposition 140 spent much of

their campaign attacking "career politicians" and their corruptive

nature. On Election Day, Proposition 140 was narrowly passed over

Proposition 131 because it offered term limits at no cost, while

Proposition 131 allowed taxpayer funding to directly funnel into

politicians' campaigns (Benjamin 122). Recently, a federal appeals

court struck down Proposition 140 allowing the issue to ascend to the

United States Supreme Court. A panel of three judges voted two to one

in opposition to the term limits legislation on October 7, 1997,

declaring that the law's language did not properly convey the message

that it carried a lifetime ban for lawmakers seeking the same office

(Frost 1).

Using his considerable resources, Lloyd Noble II, a member of

a wealthy Oklahoma family known for its civic contributions,

commissioned a survey of Oklahoma voter attitude toward the concept of

term limitation. Upon discovering the staggering results in favor of

the idea, he began devising a campaign strategy in an attempt to

implement twelve-year term limits on state legislators (Benjamin

140). State Question 632, as the proposal was called, prompted little

campaigning by its proponents and even less opposition by its

opponents (Benjamin 141). The only group to emerge in protest of

State Question 632 was PROVE (The Committee to Protect the Rights of

Oklahoma Voters), but their effort was for naught. As a result...

You should cite this paper as follows:

MLA Style
Term Limits In U.S. Government-. EssayMania.com. Retrieved on 31 Jul, 2010 from
    <http://essaymania.com/115276/term-limits-in-u-s-government->