---

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE?

"When the people lead the leaders will follow"   -- Mahatma Ghandi

Our mission is to restore better government for all Americans by ending political careerism in the United States Congress.

To accomplish our mission, we must succeed in passing a new constitutional amendment that defines the number of terms and years that members of Congress may serve.

Passing this amendment will require the affirmative vote of two thirds of both houses of Congress.

If Congress refuses to pass our amendment, we must compel the legislatures of two thirds of the states call on Congress to convene a constitutional convention to vote for its passage.

Once passed by Congress or convention, the amendment must then be ratified by three quarters of the states legislatures.

---

Although the first method of passing our amendment is preferred for the sake of expediency, compelling members of Congress to vote for limitations their own power and political ambitions may be impossible.

We believe it's more likely that we can succeed in compelling the states legislatures to call for a Constitutional Convention and pass our amendment that way.

This method of amending the Constitution has never been used before, so it will be an event of such historical significance that it will be taught in our schools and studied by constitutional scholars for generations to come!

Either way it goes, this endeavor will require the overwhelming political support of the American people, years of effort by ACT NOW! and our supporters, intense focus, zealous determination, and substantial financial resources to succeed.

WHY WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

A constitutional amendment is absolutely necessary to achieve our goal of limiting terms of congressional service, because in 1995 the US Supreme Court, by a five to four decision in the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), overturned all state legislation mandating term limits for their federal congressional delegations as unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, May 23, 1995, The New York Times reported:

"The Supreme Court ruled today, that in the absence of a constitutional amendment, neither states nor Congress may limit the number of terms that members of the US Congress can serve. The vote was 5 to 4.

The sweeping decision, one of the most important the Court has ever issued on the structure of the federal government, had the effect of wiping off the books the term limits provisions that twenty-three states had adopted for their federal congressional delegations. Limits on terms for state officeholders were not affected.

The decision, which upheld a 1994 ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court that the state's term limits measure was unconstitutional, also dealt a potentially fatal blow to a popular movement that has won nominal support from the people, but little real enthusiasm from most politicians."

This ruling stated that the only lawful means of enforcing term limits on Congress must be through constitutional amendment, because the Constitution does not expressly limit the number of terms or years that any member of Congress may serve. Article I of the Constitution simply says:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." (Article I, Section 2)  and,

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." (Article I, Section 3)

Also critical to the issue is the Seventeenth Amendment, which transferred the power to elect U.S. Senators directly to the people, and removed that power from the states legislatures. It also failed to define term limits for Senate office. The Seventeenth Amendment simply says:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

HISTORICAL SUPPORT FOR TERM LIMITS

By the early 1990's, twenty-three states had passed term limit legislation for their state and federal legislators by voter majorities that averaged more than two to one, only to have the Supreme Court overrule the laws they had worked so long and hard to establish.

Today, those same states still set term limits for their state legislators and thirty-six states also define term limits for their governors and other executive officeholders.

In 2003, a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that sixty-seven percent (67%) of respondents were in favor of congressional term limits.

In 2008, a Pulse Opinion Research Poll of one thousand likely American voters showed that eighty-three percent (83%), across all political ideologies, approved of term limits for elected representatives.

In November 2009, a Rasmussen Poll of eight hundred likely voters showed that seventy-one percent (71%) of all Americans are "very angry" (46%) or "somewhat angry" (25%) at our federal government.

A current poll running on the polling site, YouDebate.com shows that over seventy percent (70%) of respondents are in favor of term limits for elected officials.

Clearly, most Americans are in the mood to see real fundamental changes made in our federal government and would likely appreciate the restoration of a more principled, trustworthy and representative Congress.

If so many Americans consider term limits a good idea for their state legislators and governors, and Congress considered it necessary to limit the terms of American Presidents; passing the Twenty-second Amendment in 1951 -- to curb the corruption, power and privileges that accumulate with serving too long in office -- why shouldn't it be just as necessary to limit terms for members of the United States Congress?

Again the simple answer is, in the absence of a constitutional convention called for by the states, only Congress can vote to limit its own tenure, and then only by passing an amendment to the Constitution with a two thirds majority vote.

It has become apparent that Congress can never perceive -- or, more likely, simply refuses to concede -- the serious issues inherent with it's own corruption, its unbridled political careerism, its selfish neglect of its own constituents, and the necessity of constraining the vast oligarchic powers it wields.

Although there have been many proposals in Congress throughout our history for legislation to limit congressional terms, Congress has steadfastly suppressed every effort to make it law.

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

Given the historical support the overwhelming majority of the American People have long exhibited for congressional term limits -- our current economic crisis, the dismal mood of our citizens, and the lowest public approval ratings for Congress in history -- ACT NOW! believes that now is the right time to revive the term limits initiative .

We are rapidly building a consensus of American opinion and our political support to oversee passage of an appropriate constitutional amendment that defines the number of consecutive terms and years that anyone elected to Congress may serve.

But make no mistake! It will require the full force and determination of the American People to compel Congress to pass any law that limits their own power and career ambitions. There are many powerful members of Congress who have enjoyed the comforts of their office for decades, and they will not go down without a fight!