The 22nd Amendment was a reaction to Roosevelt, and it was the wrong one. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution would have eviscerated the New Deal (as it did with the National Recovery Act), but the elites failed to enforce the standards of the Constitution. Instead, they amended it in order to prevent what the document already would have prevented, had they just had the courage and integrity to pursue it. Creating a bad law to fix the errors caused by not enforcing a good law is typical of those who only pretend to govern.
The courts have ruled against it for senators and representatives in the federal system. Michigan has term limits on governors and legislators. When that law was passed, it also included limits on US Congressional reps and Senators. I don't know which court struck down that part of the law (which was a ballot initiative), but it was struck.
It really sucked for those guys who were trying to get rid of Senator Levin with the law. That law might have been passed in 1990 (I'm not sure, but it was a big year for voter initiatives) , so they have had to suffer under 20 more years of oppression by a liberal Senator that the vast majority of voters have chosen to return to office several more times.
BTW, the best argument for term limits is that it limits the amount of times that a state can impose a Carl Levin on the rest of us, no matter how popular he is among his own. Even if you like Levin, you have to admit that there are members who have long outlived their usefulness (if they ever had any in the first place) and who would benefit from having to hold a real job for a change. Think Charlie Rangel, for example.
Another idea is that any member who exceeds a certain number of terms must be barred from the ballot, but can be voted for on a write-in vote, or that after so many years, they must win an up/down vote to be put on the ballot. That way, the party bosses have limited control over keeping incumbents in place.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|