State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments

USE STATES TO INITIATE A

TERM LIMIT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

The points made by Dick Smith in his April 7, letter to the editor of the Aiken Standard were right on the mark. They also point out just how far we have drifted from the views of our Founding Fathers when it comes to the subject of citizen legislators vs. professional office holders. When our country was founded it was unthinkable to imagine an individual serving more than a short period of time in a particular position. It was considered a dangerous practice and a potential threat to democracy. In fact, many early governing documents on the state and federal levels prohibited reelection.

I believe we should go back to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers and adopt some form of term limits for legislators on both the state and federal levels. (The President and 36 governors are already term limited.) A legitimate question to ask any candidate for legislative office, be it federal or state, is where the candidate stands on term limits and what is his or her definition of an appropriate limit. Having said that, I am not optimistic any meaningful reforms will result from legislative action. Typically those who control legislative bodies are advocates of the status quo and it would be an uphill battle to dislodge them.

The United States Congress presents a particular problem. There is no initiative and referendum provision on the federal level. In addition, the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot impose term limits on their own U.S. House members or their own U.S. Senators. This means that if we follow the more traditional method of amending the U. S. Constitution we must involve Congress itself. Good luck! In 1995 the 104th Congress, especially on the House side, considered some of the most far-reaching reforms since the House stripped Speaker Joe Cannon of his dictatorial powers in 1910. The reformers were successful with some of their proposals--but not with term limits. A proposed Constitutional amendment would have limited members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. A majority of the House approved (227-204) but this was well short of the 290 votes required to pass a constitutional amendment.

The chances of reversing this mindset from within are not good. As Dick Smith pointed out, too many elected members are professional politicians who are more interested in their own future than in the country's future. A lucrative financial package, including a pension plan that emphasizes longevity and an operating system that rewards seniority over merit doesn't produce fertile territory to recruit term limit supporters.

Nor are the chances of bringing in large numbers of new, reform minded individuals. Over the years both parties have used the redistricting process to protect their own members. Congressional districts are solidly one party or the other. This obviously benefits the incumbent. The number of truly swing districts is probably not more than 40 or 45. Admittedly, in an election year when passions are high and there is a sentiment to "throw the bums out" (as it could be this year) more seats may change hands. But remember we are talking about enough votes (290) to ensure passage of a constitutional amendment.

Fortunately, there are two ways to propose an amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The first, as has been mentioned, requires both the House and the Senate by two-thirds vote to propose an amendment. This requires a proactive role by Congress in which they decide if there will be an amendment. The second method leaves it up to the states to initiate action. If at least two-thirds of the state legislatures request Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment(s), Congress must do so. Under this method the congressional role is more a passive or ministerial one which the members are required to fulfill.

There is an additional part to the constitutional amendment process which must be performed, regardless of how it is proposed, and that is ratification. This can be accomplished by either an affirmative vote in at least three-fourths of the state legislatures or an affirmative vote in conventions held for that purpose in at least three-fourths of the states. This is a subject for further discussion but either method precludes members of Congress deciding their own fate.

Utilizing state initiative to get the ball rolling on a proposed amendment can be a long and tortuous journey but it would be well worth the effort.

Letter by Dick Smith on Term Limits

The following letter was published in the Aiken Standard today:

All the candidates have filed for their respective primary elections and now we the voters must choose which of them will best represent us in the governments of the County, State and Nation.

My personal opinion is that professional politicians do not always make the best public servants. Too many of them go along to get along with their leaders in order to get and retain good committee assignments. They become more concerned with their careers instead of doing what’s right for their constituents. Over the years their egos grow ever larger and they believe they have all the answers. They also become cynical and earmarks and cronyism are the accepted way of staying in power. As the saying goes” power corrupts.” There are way too many examples of this on both sides of the aisle.

My preference is for term limits but unfortunately they are not the law of the land. Fifteen states do have term limits and 6 others have tried to implement them. Several other states are still trying to have them. I hope South Carolina will try again.

A few years ago an attempt was made in the SC Assembly to establish term limits. Under the bills placed in the House and Senate House members could serve up to eight 2 year terms in the house and then switch to the Senate for three more 4 year terms for a total of 28 years.

The proposed bills contained a “grandfather clause” exempting currently serving members from the limits. Even these very broad limits would have resulted in term limiting almost one quarter of the house members and half of the Senators. Despite the grandfather clause the bills went nowhere. Obviously the only way we will ever get term limits is to insist on a referendum and let the people decide.

In the meantime the only recourse we have is the ballot box. I urge everyone to look very hard at all the candidates in the races and closely examine the records of those who have already served several terms in one position or another. Have they consistently done a good job or have we simply become accustomed to them? Do we tend to view them as a friend and are we not as critical of them as we should be of all elected officials?

Also look hard at the challengers and their reasons for running. Don’t be afraid to vote out the good old guys and gals. According to recent polls a sizable majority of voters want new leaders with fresh ideas at all levels of government.

This is an extremely important election year. Please exercise your right to vote and choose your preferred candidates as though the fate of our great country depends on your decision. IT DOES!

Dick Smith