The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia

---

THE EARLY DAYS OF DEMOCRACY

No nation can ever be greater than the combined character, integrity and virtue of its leaders. Where are character, integrity and virtue today?
   -- Anonymous

Term limits have a long and illustrious history. The concept of term limits, or rotation in office, dates back to before the American Revolution to the original democracies and republics of antiquity. The Council of 500 in early Athens rotated its entire membership annually, as did the Ephorate in ancient Sparta. The Roman Republic featured a system of elected magistrates who served a single term of one year, with reelection forbidden for ten years.

Many of the founders of the United States were educated in the classics and quite familiar with the benefits of frequent rotation in political office during antiquity. The debates of that day reveal a desire to study and profit from the object lessons offered by the ancient democracies.

Since the very founding of our Republic, most Americans have rightly held a healthy skepticism of a perilous concentration of political power. Our founders, and the framers of our Constitution, understood the historical importance of maintaining a close connection between government and the people it is designed to serve.

Which is why they envisioned a "Citizen Legislature" to retain control of government by the People. Only since the early days of the twentieth century have American politicians ignored this legacy and pursued lifelong careers in elective office.

Through the first three Articles of the Constitution our founders established a basic framework for democratic government -- a system of checks and balances -- aimed to prevent the disproportionate accumulation of power and influence in the federal government, in one branch of government, or in any one political body.

THE FRAMEWORK FOR A NEW GOVERNMENT

In October 1781, the First Continental Congress appointed a committee of thirteen delegates to examine ancient models of government for the impending union of the states, so the best ideas from the past could be incorporated into the new nation's constitutional framework.

Along with the concept of instituting a democracy came a another proposal from Thomas Jefferson of Virginia urging a limitation of congressional tenure, "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress...".

The committee's actual recommendations regarding term limits, were incorporated unchanged into the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789). Article V of that document stated, "no person shall be capable of being a delegate (to the continental congress) for more than three years in any term of six years."

In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the federal Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia omitted mandatory term limits from the second national framework of our government, the Constitution of the United States. Nonetheless, due largely to historical grass roots support for the principle of rotation, rapid turnover in office prevailed by extra-constitutional means (in other words, incumbents voluntary limited their own terms in office).

FOUNDERS CONCERNS FOR LACK OF TERM LIMITS

However, when the states ratified the Constitution, many of the leading statesmen of the day regarded the lack of mandatory limits to political tenure as a very dangerous defect in our Constitution; especially as pertaining to the Presidency and the Senate.

Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure from the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic."

Thomas Jefferson and George Mason advised limits on the number of terms anyone can be elected to Congress, because noted Mason, "nothing can be so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation (of its members)."

Connecticut's Roger Sherman wrote, "Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents."

Historian Mercy Otis Warren warned, "There is no provision for a rotation, or anything else to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which, by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done...."

One has to wonder what our nation's framers would think of Congress today, with its ruling cadre of lifelong career politicians and its embedded culture of corruption. If they were still with us today, we would surely hear more than a few choice words from those honored gentlemen on this subject!

WHY THEY WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE CONSTITUTION

Unfortunately, the delegates who framed the Constitution, desiring to produce as brief a document as possible, believed that including term limits for Congress was unnecessary. Congressional service was viewed as a part-time job by citizen legislators who would go to Washington to do their duty and then return home to their farms and businesses to resume their lives once the legislature adjourned.

Another limiting factor was life expectancy, which was only about thirty-five years in eighteenth century America. Someone elected to Congress at age twenty-five could not be expected to serve more than a few years. Little did our founders know that just two hundred later we would live over twice as long and have representatives holding congressional office for forty or fifty years!

Serving in Congress wasn't always about perks and entitlements. In the early days of our country, members of Congress were paid $6 per day, and that was only while they were in session. It wasn't until 1815 that members actually began receiving an annual salary of $1,500 per year.

If they wanted to employ an assistant, they had to pay that salary out of their own pockets. For many members who weren't lucky enough to be independently wealthy, it meant working second jobs in order to augment their personal income. In other words, they were statesmen who served out of a love of country and a sense of duty.

In contrast, by 2009 congressional salaries were $174,000 annually; thanks in part to the automatic yearly pay raises our Imperial Congress voted for itself in 1989. The Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi of California) receives $223,500. The Minority Leaders of both the House and Senate, and the Senate President Pro Tempore (Robert Byrd of West Virginia) each receive $193,400.

In addition, every member of Congress receives generous taxpayer funded expense allowances in the millions of dollars for office staff and travel, and have a ready reserve of campaign funds at their disposal (often in the tens of millions of dollars).

Then there are the mostly unknown -- yet universally acknowledged -- unreported and unlimited amounts of cash that career incumbents covertly receive from their wealthy special interest supporters. Most would call this outright bribery, and they'd be right!

It's no small wonder that so few modern politicians, once comfortably ensconced in office, voluntarily relinquish their positions any more. It also explains why so few challengers -- fewer than 5% -- ever unseat their incumbent opponents in elections, and why incumbents become harder to unseat with every fresh term in office.

"One thing our founding fathers could not foresee... is a nation governed by professional politicians who have a vested interest in getting reelected. They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then looking forward to getting back to the farm." -- Ronald Reagan

The fact that "perpetuity in office" didn't become accepted until the twentieth century is due in large part to the influence of rotation in office as a popular eighteenth and nineteenth century concept.

Ideas are forces, and rotation in office enjoyed such popular support, especially at the local level, that it altered political perception to such an extent that politicians of the day voluntarily imposed term limits on themselves.

Clearly, constitutional term limits were not really necessary at the time. The tendency to look with mistrust upon political power was so ingrained into American culture that even the officeholders perceived their part-time political occupations disparagingly.

James Fennimore Cooper described the common view that "contact with the affairs of state is one of the most corrupting of the influences to which men are exposed."

The Richmond Enquirer noted that the "long cherished principles of rotation in office had been impressed on the republican (democratic) mind by a kind of intuitive impulse, unassailable to argument or authority."

TERM LIMITS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Beginning in the 1830's, Jacksonian democracy introduced a less idealistic twist to the practice of limiting terms. Rotation in office back then came to mean taking turns in receiving political prizes. Rotation of nominations to the House of Representatives - the prizes - became payoffs to the party faithful and everybody got into the act.

The leaders in the local party machinery came to regard a nomination for the House as "salary" for political services rendered. A new code of political ethics evolved, based on the proposition that "turnabout is fair play." Rotation of nominations was intertwined with the spoils system and given out as rewards. In other words, "Play ball with us and we'll get you elected to a very cozy political position".

Abraham Lincoln was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1846 under such a bargain, but he returned home to Springfield after a single term because, as he wrote, "to enter myself as a competitor of another or to authorize anyone so to enter me is what my word and honor forbid."

The culture of corruption that eventually came to pervade Congress was epitomized by the Salary Grab of 1873. On March 13, the last day of their term, members of the 42nd Congress, nearly half of whom would not be returning, voted to give themselves a retroactive pay increase that amounted to a $5,000 going-away present.

The "salary grab" quickly gave rise to a nationwide sense of outrage over Congress' culture of corruption. It dominated newspaper headlines and resulted in a backlash at the polls that year. This, in turn, gave rise to a reform movement that succeeded in replacing the "spoils system" of filling government jobs with civil service reform.

The practice of nomination rotation started to decline after the Civil War due to political fragmentation. It took a generation or so before the direct primary system, civil service reforms, and the new ethics of professionalism worked to eliminate rotation in office as a common political practice.

By the beginning of the twentieth century however, the era of careerist politicians and unlimited congressional incumbency came into full swing and the culture of corruption that pervades Congress still persists, and may be more prevalent to this day.

THE FATE OF TERM LIMITS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Power within Congress is disbursed on a seniority basis. The political parties will always back their incumbent for reelection because of the seniority system. Incumbents get more campaign contributions for the same seniority reason. Big special interests are always going to hedge their bets by giving to both candidates, but always give more to the incumbent. The game is rigged to support the incumbent. It encourages professional politicians. I believe term limits will stop election rigging by incumbent politicians.
   -- Anonymous American Blogger

"Homesteading", or securing a lifelong career in Congress; was made possible by reelection rates for congressional incumbents that approached 100% by the end of the twentieth century, and brought about a popular initiative known as "the term limits movement" to reform Congress.

The advantages of incumbency: generous congressional salaries; franking (free mail) privileges; huge expense accounts; better media exposure and name recognition; more campaign contributions and the support of wealthy special interests; all combine to place political challengers at such a disadvantage that fewer than five per cent ever succeed in unseating their incumbent opponents.

Some members of Congress, states governors and legislators, and other American patriots who were concerned that these high incumbency rates and unlimited tenure in Congress had fostered a ruling class of career politicians with no boundaries on their powers, debated how best to restrain a growing congressional oligarchy.

During the early 1990's reformers used popular initiatives and voter referendum to force mandated congressional term limits on the ballots in twenty-three states. Voters in each of these states approved the proposed congressional term limits by an average electoral margin of two to one; an overwhelming public mandate for reform.

After the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, Republicans gained control of the House for the first time in over forty years and Republican lawmakers introduced congressional term limit legislation in Congress as part of their "Contract with America", only to see what was perceived as the best chance in history to achieve a breakthrough on its passage shot down by the Supreme Court.

The cause for term limit reform had really gained momentum until, in May 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon federal Representatives or Senators "in the absence of a Constitutional Amendment to limit such terms".

The Supreme Court's ruling overturned legislation passed by twenty-three states that had limited the terms of their federal congressional delegations as unconstitutional.

"All over Washington today, the career politicians and power brokers are happy. In fact, if you listen closely, you can hear the sound of champagne corks popping." -- Paul Jacobs - U.S. Term Limits

However, term limits intended to reform state legislatures (as distinguished from their federal congressional delegations) remain in force in many states, and many other states have proposed term limit legislation pending. Thirty-six states also have passed laws limiting the number of terms their governors may serve.

Six other states that had enacted term limits for their legislators later had the laws overruled by their State Supreme Courts as unconstitutional (state constitutions), or repealed by subsequent legislatures that refused to be bound by these limits.

Clearly, the American people want term limits for their elected officials, but haven't developed a well-organized effort to enforce them until now. If term limits are to be upheld at the state and national level, amending the appropriate Constitutions (states and the U.S.) is the only legal means of making such measures permanent.

Today, the term limits movement led by ACT NOW! has the best chance of getting such amendments passed. However, we will require overwhelming popular support and the full force and power of the American people joining our cause to succeed.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -- Thomas Jefferson

THE 22nd AMENDMENT - PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMITS

Nearly half a century prior to the term limits movement of the 1990's, the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to a fourth consecutive term gave rise to a successful move in Congress to restore the two-term tradition in the Presidency by constitutional means. As ratified in 1951, the Twenty-Second Amendment states that, "no person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice..."

George Washington started the tradition of Presidential term limits by refusing to run for a third term. The short-lived Confederate States of America adopted a six-year term for their President and barred their Presidents from ever seeking reelection.

This principle was endorsed and followed by many American politicians after the civil war; most notably by Rutherford B. Hayes, who pledged to limit his terms of presidential office in his inaugural address of 1877.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the only President to successfully break Washington's tradition, and he died in office while serving his fourth term.

After Roosevelt's death, Congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment, to prevent the possibility of another "Imperial Presidency"; but Congress could not perceive -- or more likely, refused to concede -- the need to place such limitations upon themselves and the powers they hold over all Americans, and did not include congressional term limits in this amendment.

Our "Imperial Congress" of today, and the lifelong career politicians who dominate it, have consolidated such awesome and frightening power -- way beyond the scope of anything our founders might have imagined -- the powers of all other legislatures throughout history pale in comparison.

"If our founding fathers only knew what Congress is up to these days, they'd be shouting from their graves and demanding a shot at rewriting the Constitution to put an end to it."  -- Joe Londot, Founder - ACT NOW!

THE NEED FOR A NEW AMENDMENT

"The overwhelming advantages conferred by incumbency and partisan redistricting can only be counteracted by a mandated maximum on office-holding. In addition, new ideas and fresh blood, and greater representation for historically under-represented women and minorities are guaranteed with term limits."   -- Larry Sabato

In 2007, Professor Larry J. Sabato of the University of Virginia revived the debate over term limits by arguing in his work, "A More Perfect Constitution", that the overwhelming success and popularity of term limits at the state level in the 1990's suggests that they should be adopted for the United States Congress as well.

He specifically set forth the idea of congressional term limits and suggested a national Constitutional Convention be convened to accomplish the amendment, since members of Congress would be unlikely to propose and adopt any amendment that limits their own power or restrains their political career ambitions.

"Asking an incumbent member of Congress to vote for (congressional) term limits is a bit like asking a chicken to vote for Colonel Sanders."
   -- Congressman Bob Inglis

In 2009, the United States Congress remains without electoral term limits, or any real check of its steadily increasing powers, perpetuating the least representative and most dangerously oligarchic legislature in American history.

The Supreme Court ruling of 1995 makes it clear that a constitutional amendment to define congressional term limits is required. Such an amendment must either be proposed by Congress, then passed by two thirds of both Houses of Congress; or passed by Constitutional Convention called for by two thirds of the states. In either case, the amendment must then be ratified by three quarters of the states to be incorporated into the Constitution.

Both of these methods present a daunting barrier to those of us seeking to reform Congress, restrain congressional powers, and restore government representation and accountability to the People.

The initiative for congressional reform must originate from the American People ourselves. Only we have the power to compel Congress to pass an amendment that curbs their own powers and political career ambitions. And failing that, to compel the states to call on Congress for a Constitutional Convention. Neither task will be easy, but both are definitely achievable with popular support.

On the brighter side, if we succeed in compelling the states to call for a convention it will be a momentous event in American History, since this method for amending the Constitution has never been used. An event of such magnitude will be taught in our schools and studied by constitutional scholars for generations to come!

"Men make history and not the other way around. Progress occurs only when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better."   -- Harry S. Truman

GOVERNMENT OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE

"The inside operation of Congress - the deals, the compromises, the selling out, the co-opting, the unprincipled manipulating, the self-serving career building - is a story of such monumental decadence that I believe if people find out about it they will demand an end to it." -- Bella Abzug

We maintain that if term limits are desirable and necessary for our Presidents, as well as for some thirty-six of our state governors and many state legislatures, -- "to curb the corruption, power and privileges that accumulate with serving too long in these offices" -- then term limits are just as necessary for the U.S. Congress for precisely the same reasons. We want the "MY VOTE FOR SALE" signs torn down in Congress!

We point to the cowardly behavior of many congressmen during the town hall meetings of the summer of 2009 as ample evidence that many in Congress have totally lost touch with, and obviously fear, their own constituents.

After the angry reception their colleagues received from constituents, many members simply canceled their own town hall meetings rather than address the concerns of the very people who voted them into office. Not exactly an exemplary model for government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Another example is the refusal of Congress to include tort reform, or capping the amounts of damages awarded in medical malpractice lawsuits, in the hideously expensive universal health insurance legislation being considered.

Most experts believe, and many states with effective tort limits have demonstrated, that tort reform will cut many billions of dollars from health care costs by reducing medical practitioners' malpractice insurance costs.

Congressional careerists oppose tort reform, because it is opposed by the Trial Lawyers Association, a wealthy special interest group that provides millions of dollars in election campaign support and undoubtedly generous covert financial incentives, to the career politicians who support their position.

We also point to the slimy political maneuvering our congressional leaders have used to pass their recent legislative agendas -- legislation that has very real prospects of totally bankrupting our country -- that the People don't want or support.

Surely, most of us have heard about the three hundred million dollar pay-off a Senator from Louisiana received from the Senate Majority Leader to buy her vote for his universal health care bill. We wonder just how much of this outright bribery, paid with taxpayer dollars, goes on that we never hear about?

"The liberties of a people never were or ever will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."   -- Patrick Henry

Late night backroom deal-making, political arm twisting, threats of extortion and outright bribery -- using taxpayer money to pay the bribes -- are all employed to advance the interests of the career politicians without any real regard to the interests of the People who elected them.

The arrogance and audacity of these congressional careerists is boundless! They have no problem lying straight to our faces and telling us that it's all for our own good, because they've gotten away with lying to us for so long they know they'll get away with it again!

Unrestricted taxation; reckless spending; trillion-dollar budget deficits; record national debt; crippling recession; high unemployment; and unaffordable, incomprehensible legislation, are all symptomatic of a Congress too far removed, and too long insulated, from the people who elected them to office.

It's high time We the People get together and put a stop to it!

A BOLD NEW INITIATIVE TO REFORM CONGRESS

"America wasn't built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand."
   -- Harry S. Truman

In 2009, Americans for Congressional Term-limits Now! (ACT NOW!), a grass roots organization conceived and founded by an everyday American citizen, is growing by leaps and bounds. It seems virtually all Americans want their Congress back!

ACT NOW! is organized and supported by concerned American citizens to reinvigorate the populist movement, reenergize the national debate, reengage the states, and revive the initiative to limit congressional terms.

The low regard most Americans hold for Congress and the fate of our nation's future demand it. We must be able to trust and respect our leaders again!

ACT NOW! recognizes that the only way to reform Congress; to end the culture of corruption; limit the power of wealthy special interests; and restore accountability in government to the People is to successfully amend the Constitution to limit the terms that those elected to Congress may serve.

We understand that this daunting undertaking that will require superb organization, years of determined effort and substantial financial resources to be successful.

We also understand that without tremendous grass roots political support from an overwhelming majority of Americans, our effort to finally succeed in reforming Congress, where so many previous attempts have failed, will be doomed as well. After all, we do expect Congress to fight these reforms!

Fortunately, it appears that popular American opinion is on our side.

In October 2008, a Pulse Opinion Research Poll of one thousand likely American voters found that 83% favored term limits for all elected officials.

In November 2009, a Rasmussen Poll of eight hundred likely voters showed that 71% of Americans are either "very angry" (46%) or "somewhat angry" (25%) at our federal government for its self-serving policies.

Clearly, most Americans are indeed angry and want to see the powers and political ambitions of their elected officials constrained by law.

OTHER INITIATIVES TO LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL TERMS

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fund raising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork; in short, amassing their own power."
   -- Senator Jim DeMint

In November 2009, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina introduced his version of a term limit amendment, "Term Limits for All" in the U.S. Senate. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, and Sam Brownback of Kansas.

This amendment is tougher on incumbents than the one proposed by ACT NOW!, as it absolutely limits holding Senate office to two terms, and Representative office to three terms. It also forces incumbents to relinquish their office once their current terms expire if they have already served the allowable number of terms.

While ACT NOW! supports the efforts of these Senators to limit congressional terms, we don't see this bill gaining much traction in Congress and expect it to fizzle. First, it's fairly obvious that Congress isn't inclined to limit its own terms of service; and second, we believe the bill is too harsh on incumbents to attract much support.

In contrast, the amendment language we propose allows the incumbent Congress a bit more leeway. We propose to limit "consecutive terms" that Senators may serve to two, while allowing reelection to the Senate after sitting out at least one term (six years); and limit "consecutive terms" in the House to three, while allowing reelection to the House after sitting out at least two terms (four years).

"We believe that any law enacted to reform Congress and fundamentally change the way our government is managed must be measured, reasonable and fair to Congress and to the People."   -- Joe Londot, ACT NOW!

We believe that banning incumbents from ever holding congressional office again is unfair to them and their constituents, who may believe their legislators did a good job and would like to see them serve again. However, we advocate that retiring incumbents should return home for a reasonable period of years to reacquaint themselves with their constituents and the real world issues of the day before running again for reelection.

In addition, our proposal limits the "consecutive years" anyone may serve in Congress to eighteen (six years in the House, followed by twelve in the Senate, or vice versa). It also allows incumbents holding office when our amendment is passed to retain their offices so long as they continue to be reelected by their constituents.

This provision allows long-serving incumbents incentive to vote for passage of our amendment without undue concern about "cutting their own throats" and forcing their own retirement when their current terms expire. However, we expect that many long-serving incumbents will voluntarily retire -- as happened in California in 1990 when term limits were enacted for the state assembly -- once our amendment passes.

We believe that our proposed amendment is a measured and reasonable approach to fundamental congressional reform, is fair to all concerned, and can attract enough popular and political support to be passed by Congress or by constitutional convention and become law.

We must seize this opportunity to restore better government. Your support, and the support of concerned Americans everywhere, is absolutely vital to our success and the health of our democracy.

This is our best shot at passing a term limit amendment. If we can't reform Congress through this initiative it will be "business as usual" in Washington for the rest of our lives and our children's lives as well; or at least until someone else steps up to the plate and finally succeeds in getting an amendment passed.