A Political World with No Limits

A Political World with No Limits
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Zach Sheinberg


Last Thursday, the New York City Council voted 29 – 22 to permit incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-N.Y.) to seek a third mayoral term, extending the current eight year citywide limit to twelve years. Therefore, not only may Mayor Bloomberg seek a third term, but so may each of the fifty-one members of the New York City Council. Without the extension, approximately two thirds of the City Council would have been prohibited from seeking reelection in 2009.

The vote of the City Council supersedes a previous referendum passed by New York City voters in 1993, which imposed the two-term limit. In 1996, the City Council first attempted to extend two-terms to three-terms, but voters rejected the extension in another referendum.

How do you feel about the New York City Council vote? Are you in favor of term limits? Against? Ambivalent?


Articles of Confederation

The concept of term limits dates back to ancient Athens. Term limits were also considered by the Founding Fathers of the United States and incorporated into the Articles of Confederation, ratified on March 1, 1781, which governed the United States of America before adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

Article V of the Articles of Confederation set forth, “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years…” While this provision did not set a hard limit on duration of service, it did serve to maintain a constant flow of new personnel into Congress.

As I was reading the Articles of Confederation, I came across an interesting provision (although one that has no relevance whatsoever to term limits). Article XI states, “Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.” Canada did not have to do anything to become part of the United States. We made it easy. And still, it decided to go it alone!


United States Constitution

The United States Constitution, ratified on June 21, 1788 after New Hampshire approved it (see Note 1 below), which amended (or more accurately, replaced) the Articles of Confederation, did not make any provision for term limits. Therefore, under the Constitution as originally ratified, any President, United States Senator or Representative could serve indefinitely.


The George Washington Example

After two terms as President of the United States, George Washington declined to run for reelection in 1796, even after being urged to do so. Because the United States had only been led by one President, its first President, the first transition of power had yet to occur. Washington’s retirement paved the way for the first real Presidential Election and the first real test of the durability of the mechanisms that the Constitution put in place to transition to a new political regime.

Keep in mind that back in 1796, no one knew with certainty whether an orderly transition would occur. The last government transition in which America participated was the Revolutionary War.

The two-term example that Washington set persisted until 1940. Although whether subsequent officeholders never served more than two terms in an effort to honor America’s patriarch, support the idea of term limits or pursue some other agenda, no one knows.


Bucking the Trend

In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt decided to seek a third term as President, which he won. Roosevelt also won a fourth term in 1944. If FDR had not died during year 13 of his Presidency, he might even have sought a fifth term.

Why? Probably because of the developing war in Europe. Roosevelt was a strong leader that had led the nation through the Great Depression. He had tremendous brand value across the United States. And with strong Republican gains in Congress during the 1938 elections, the Democratic Party likely opted to nominate its strongest candidate, who happened to be the incumbent President. World War II logically explains why Roosevelt sought a fourth term, which Roosevelt won in 1944.


The Twenty-Second Amendment

Following the conclusion of World War II, Congress reacted by passing the Twenty-Second Amendment, ratified on February 27, 1951, which prohibited a President from serving more than two full terms. While the Amendment specifically exempted the currently serving President, then Harry Truman, from the two-term limit, Truman voluntarily stepped down after serving the remainder of FDR’s fourth term and one term of his own.

The text of the Twenty-Second Amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.”

In practice, the Amendment means that a President can only serve more than two terms if he becomes President by succession (i.e. he is the Vice President and the President dies, resigns or is thrown out of office) with less than two years left in the term.

For example, President John Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. When Vice President Lyndon Johnson succeeded to the Presidency, he served the rest of Kennedy’s term, which was less than two years (Presidential terms, currently, run from noon on January 20 following the Election until 11:59 AM January 20 for years later). Therefore, Johnson could have run for reelection in 1964, which he did, and 1968, which he did not.


The States

Term limits existed among the States even prior to the Articles of Confederation, reaching back to the Pennsylvania Charter of Liberties of 1682, which provided for a triennial rotation of officeholders on the Provincial Council (see Note 2 below).

Today, in some form or another, thirty-six States have term limits.

Some states have a strict term limit, meaning that an officeholder can serve no more than a certain number of consecutive terms. For example, Arizona limits gubernatorial service to two terms. Therefore, incumbent Governor Janet Napolitano (D-Az.) cannot stand for reelection in 2010.

Others have a term limit within a specified period of time. For example, Virginia limits service by prohibiting the Governor from serving consecutive terms. So incumbent Governor Tim Kaine (D-Va.) cannot seek reelection in 2009; however, he can seek reelection in 2013.

Still other states have no term limits. For example, North Dakota, where incumbent Governor John Hoeven (R-N.D.) is now running for his third consecutive term.


The Arguments for Term Limits

- They provide a constant influx of new officeholders, which brings new personalities, new ideas and new energy. But is this a good or bad thing? What if Congress (as hard as this might be to believe), is doing a good job? Do we always want new blood?

- They add an additional check on political entrenchment and entrenchment often leads to abuses of power and office. The more power an officeholder accumulates over time, the more valuable he becomes to corporations and industry groups to affect their agendas.

- They allow a greater opportunity for more citizens to become involved in government through serving in elective office. Is participation in government not our civic duty?

- They are a counterweight to the power of the incumbency. The amount of name recognition, money, prestige and news coverage current officeholders enjoy puts them at a significant advantage over challengers.

- They offer less incentive for officeholders to cater to the popular whims of powerful constituencies. If officeholders are not worried about reelection, they can “vote their conscience.”


The Arguments Against Term Limits

- As the business of government has become more complex, effective officeholders must have years of experience dealing with issues and the political process for the government to function properly. Term limits would force officeholders to rely more heavily on career lobbyists and legislative aides. Do we want novices steering public policy in Congress?

- Term limits would serve to focus the attention of officeholders on whatever political office or job to which they aspired next. For instance, once an individual was elected to the House of Representatives, he would act in a way that does not hurt his chances of running for the United States Senate when his term limit arrives. Or obtaining a position in the business world.

- Voters have the freedom to remove an officeholder on each Election Day. That choice should be left to voters. If the officeholder is performing well, why deprive voters of continued services of that officeholder?

Even more evidence, as the late self-styled political philosopher George Carlin once said, “Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans.”


My Opinion

In my opinion, a regime of no term limits is preferable to term limits. Because I think that solutions exist to counter most of the arguments against no term limits.

First, the influx of new people.

I am concerned with the lack of experience of novice officeholders not only with respect to policy, but also with respect to process. One cannot learn the intricacies of geopolitical relationships or other policy issues quickly and on paper. A thorough understanding only comes from dealing with them over a period of time.

Additionally, the legislative process is complicated. One reason that former President Lyndon Johnson (D-Tx.) was able to push his Great Society legislation through Congress is because of his mastery of the legislative process as a United States Congressman, Senator, Senate Majority Whip, Senate Majority Leader and Vice President. Although, maybe officeholders who are unfamiliar with how Congress is “supposed to” work would make the process more efficient.

Second, the check on entrenchment.

Officeholders who serve for ten, twenty, thirty or more years learn over time how to work the system. While I like to think everyone is honest, I have gotten fake phone numbers before. But I also like to think that we have a judicial system and electorate that can weed out those who take advantage, like the House Democrats involved in the check-bouncing scandal in the early-1990s and former Connecticut Governor John Rowland (R-Ct.), who used the Office of the Governor to benefit himself financially. In response, the electorate installed a Republican Congressional majority in 1994 and Rowland resigned and went to federal prison. But while there are many instances of the judicial system and electorate holding abusive officeholders accountable, there are likely even more instances that we will never learn about where they did not.

Third, the greater participation argument.

Honestly, I do not want so many more people involved. I want the best and brightest involved. If that is not you, perform your duty of civic participation another way.

Fourth, the power of the incumbency.

This is a serious concern. It is very difficult to unseat an incumbent, at any level of government. Which leads to entrenchment. However, I believe that if we modify our campaign finance laws, and there are several interesting proposals out there, to level the playing field, I think that the power of the incumbency can be minimized. Although since incumbent officeholders are the ones who decide what campaign finance reform is passed, the playing field likely will remain unlevel.

Fifth, the pandering issue.

If officeholders were limited to one term, they would not ever worry about reelection. But any regime of term limits likely would specify more than one term. So except for the last term, officeholders would have to worry about reelection. And even if they were limited to one term, there remains the issue of climbing the political ladder. A term limit in one office does not apply to a different office. So career politicians would still have to act in a way that keeps them in the good graces of voters. The problem does not actually change. There is no easy fix for this issue.


New York City 2009 Mayoral Race

As you can imagine, neither of the leading contenders to challenge Mayor Bloomberg in 2009, New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson and Congressman Anthony Weiner, both Democrats, supported the proposal to extend city term limits. The popularity of the incumbent Mayor, the power of the incumbency and Bloomberg’s intended use of $80 million for the campaign make unseating him almost an impossibility.

Although I wonder if either Thompson or Weiner would have supported the extension if he were the incumbent Mayor.


Weekly News Update

(Soon to be Former) Senator Ted Stevens: On Monday, a federal court in Washington, DC convicted Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ak.) on all seven counts (see Note 3 below) for which he was indicted. This Senate seat is now a sure win for Anchorage Mayor, and Democrat, Mark Begich (D-Ak.).

Republican Endorsements of Obama: Over the past week, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and former Massachusetts Governor William Weld each endorsed Barack Obama for President.

Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.): Murtha finds himself in a much closer race than expected thanks to the following comment he made to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.” He apologized for the remark, then later commented to Pittsburgh’s WTAE that, “this whole area, years ago, was really redneck.” Seriously? Bite the hand that feeds you? Racist, redneck, all the right words to describe the people who vote for you. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is dumping money into Murtha’s Twelfth District to save him. If he survives, it will be narrowly.

Republican Triage: According to the Washington Post, the list of abandoned Republican incumbents is growing. In an effort to minimize the bleeding and concentrate its dwindling financial races on seats they are more likely to retain, the NRCC has cancelled all media buys on behalf of Representatives Marilyn Musgrave (R-Co.), Tom Feeney (R-Fl.) and Joe Knollenberg (R-Mi.).

Palin ‘12: Recent news reports have raised the conduct of Republican Vice Presidential Nominee, Sarah Palin (R-Ak.), in going “rogue” and off message to placate conservatives. Some suggest that she is doing so because she believes that Senator John McCain will lose the Presidential Election and she wants to establish herself independently as a Republican Party leader, perhaps to set herself up for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012. Odds of Palin becoming the Republican nominee in 2012? Same odds as Ted Stevens winning reelection. Zero.

Statue of Liberty: Exactly one hundred twenty-two years ago today, President Grover Cleveland dedicated the Statue of Liberty.

Next Tuesday: Election Predictions.

------------------------------
Sources

Newsday: http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/news/ny-nyterm225893354oct22,0,2215389.story
Gotham Gazette: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20050314/200/1348
The U.S. Constitution Online: http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/nyregion/10termlimits.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The Associated Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6-IqwvI2Wmh9h06Alh_H1zp6z6AD943Q5V80
Politics1: www.politics1.com
The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203107.html

------------------------------
Notes

Note 1: New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. Article VII of the United States Constitution required nine states to ratify before it became effective.

Note 2: The Provincial Council was the upper chamber of the colonial Pennsylvania Legislature.

Note 3: For a list of counts, see http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/744566.html.