Dakota Beacon

We should go slowly on amending our Constitution!

On the same day that the Republican Party of Utah dumped long-time Senator Bob Bennett for the RINO he is, another interesting thing happened over a thousand miles away.  In far-off Maine, long a RINO bastion, the grassroots tea party activists proceeded to take over the state’s Republican Party at its own convention.

These patriots invoked Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and abolished an existing platform, substituting one dedicated to the principles of the nation’s Founders.  The Founders and Framers would be proud.  (If you email me at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) I will forward the text.)

Indeed, with one exception, it is impossible to argue with this impressive and remarkable assertion of common sense and principle.  The lone exception, as I see it, is in a demand for “term limits”.  This is a recurring theme with many Conservatives and Independents.  It is a foundation of the GOOOH organization.  For more years than I want to admit to, I have argued against the folly of term limits under our form of government.  Our Constitution has already provided us with a mechanism ensuring term limits at the will of the people.  Make no mistake – everyone we elect is automatically subject to term limits.

The problem referenced by proponents of fixed term limits is that once elected, our members of Congress theoretically immediately fall prey to ambitious lobbyists and special interests.  These special interests “buy” our elected representatives and from then on, these elected officials cease to concern themselves with the best interests of their constituents back home.  The argument goes that there is just so much money involved that it becomes impossible to unseat them.

This might even have been a persuasive argument at one time.  But now the words and actions of these representatives are conveyed to prospective voters instantaneously via internet, radio and television.

What this misguided idea of term limits as a cure for corruption amounts to is just one more “nanny” effort to protect us from ourselves.  Only voter sloth and ignorance – and voter corruption – stand in the way of limiting the term of any elected official. All these “fixed” term limits can do is dictate one more constraint on our liberty.

This idea, despite its good intentions, would be a boon to special interests.  Just think – every last-term representative a free agent!  It’s counterintuitive and guaranteed to produce the opposite of its intended effect, and is, in fact, potentially very, very dangerous, leaving large numbers of these people ripe for the picking by lobbyists and activists of every kind.  Imagine it – lobbyists who used to seek out weak Congressmen or Senators and beg for their attention would now have lines waiting outside their office doors, competing to negotiate.

Here’s an illustration – all hypothetical, of course.  Recently a leading Republican senator (call him “X”) offered his opinion that Elena Kagan would probably make an excellent Supreme Court Justice – despite her lack of experience and demonstrated far-left and blind partisan loyalty to her would-be benefactor, President Soetoro.  This, in the wake of a strong statement from his own party, in his own state, that his constituents have had enough of socialism; delegates at his party’s state convention took aggressive action to correct the course by no less means than dumping their long-term incumbent senator from their ticket.  In the same convention, the same delegates took a straw poll on this aforementioned senator and found that a full 71% of them felt the same way about him – they would dump him as well when his term ends.

Consider this.  Why would this Senator “X” persist – indeed, go out of his way -  to hint at support of this nominee, obviously unacceptable to the Right and by now, mainstream America?  It was suggested in casual conversation, that this man might be telegraphing to President Soetoro that his vote might just be had.  Might there also be a federal judgeship opening up?  This is speculated even on the basis of a straw vote suggesting the coming of a normal term limiting – not even the guarantee of institutionalized fixed term limits.  And if not just a deal for a vote with the President, what about an executive suite on K Street or a well-remunerated spot as a “consultant”?  Or . . . well, just leave it to your imagination.

In successful business deals you leave something “on the table’ – there must be incentive for the other guy.  In politics, too, there must be incentive.  A Congressman or Senator mustn’t become a lame duck automatically.  A lame duck senator, for the last six years of his career, is going to be immune to pressure from his constituents.  He has absolutely nothing to lose by selling them out – to anybody for anything.  They can’t reward him with another term or punish him by voting him out.  This is so obvious it is almost embarrassing to assert it here – but apparently necessary.  Apparently, or we wouldn’t keep hearing about “term limits” – at least not from Conservatives.  This issue should really belong to the Left.  It seeks to narrow our options, tell us what we can and can’t do at the polls – all for our “own good”.

Our Framers set term lengths and gave us the means to remove objectionable public servants from office at specified intervals through the election process.  Many states, including North Dakota, have the right of recall during a term.  (This will be argued perhaps this year.)  The only thing stopping us from getting rid of corrupt or ineffective representatives is laziness and apathy and our own corrupt agendas.  People who are too apathetic to find out what is going on in Congress and/or are too lazy and shiftless to go to the polls and vote their opinions have little to complain about.

We have some terrific incumbents – men and women whose vote in Congress can only be won on principle and in the greater best interests of their constituents as Americans – and not for privilege or money or position – people like Michele Bachman, Mike Pense, Jim DeMint, John Fleming. And at the state level, Governors Brewer and Christie, who are making the tough decisions to get their states back on track and protect their citizens.  Should we tell voters they won’t be allowed to return them to office?

Term limits are not a substitute for an active, engaged electorate.  Unless you correct the real problems of apathy, ignorance and corruption at home, the replacements won’t be any better than what we complain of today.  Do we really need a new law to tell us one more thing we have to do or can’t do, when we have already, thanks to an ingenious Constitution, the means to work our will and assert, in no uncertain terms, our power?  They didn’t need “term limits” in Utah!

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government