Spring Break
Congressional Reps., Senators should retire at 80
Matt Stevens
Issue date: 3/5/09 Section: Commentary
For many years, there has been an interesting debate about whether or not U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators should be term limited. Some argue that applying term limits to these officials is democratic, as they guarantee that there will be changes in leadership and that the people are always served by relatively young, healthy and sharp people. Others, however, argue that term limits can deprive the people of some truly dedicated public servants and are inherently ageist and so therefore, should not be adopted.
Proponents and critics of congressional term limits both raise valid points. The best way to deal with this quandary about the length of service of members of Congress is a constitutional amendment that is a compromise and combines elements of the arguments that both sides of this debate make.
Both sides of this debate are compelling. For one, it is possible that term limits will ensure that members of Congress are more honest.
Lord Acton, a 19th-century British politician, once said "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
What this statement means is that the more power people have, the more likely it is that that power will go to their heads and corrupt them. This quote is relevant to the debate over congressional term limits because it is possible that if members know that they will only be at the seat of power for a certain amount of time, they will not feel that they have "absolute power," thus making it more likely that they will not be corrupted.
The argument that term limits ensure that healthy individuals, both in a mental and physical sense, are serving the people is also convincing. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that as people get older, they begin to decline mentally and physically. Therefore, it is imperative that people are out of office before their health begins to limit their ability to serve.
I am further convinced of this argument in favor of term limits by the recent history of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va). Byrd is 91 years old and has served in the Senate for 50 years. Yet, his health has recently been described as "declining." Many have also questioned Senator Byrd's mental fitness for service as a senator. Such questions become more valid when one observes his recent speeches. One in particular, from Feb. 5, 2008 on the Senate floor, comes to mind. While making this speech, Byrd (who is also President Pro Tempore of the Senate and three heartbeats from the presidency) appeared seriously disoriented much of the time and even spoke about a senator from Timbuktu. Knowing this, it is hard not to wonder how effective such a person can be for his or her constituents.
Proponents and critics of congressional term limits both raise valid points. The best way to deal with this quandary about the length of service of members of Congress is a constitutional amendment that is a compromise and combines elements of the arguments that both sides of this debate make.
Both sides of this debate are compelling. For one, it is possible that term limits will ensure that members of Congress are more honest.
Lord Acton, a 19th-century British politician, once said "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
What this statement means is that the more power people have, the more likely it is that that power will go to their heads and corrupt them. This quote is relevant to the debate over congressional term limits because it is possible that if members know that they will only be at the seat of power for a certain amount of time, they will not feel that they have "absolute power," thus making it more likely that they will not be corrupted.
The argument that term limits ensure that healthy individuals, both in a mental and physical sense, are serving the people is also convincing. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that as people get older, they begin to decline mentally and physically. Therefore, it is imperative that people are out of office before their health begins to limit their ability to serve.
I am further convinced of this argument in favor of term limits by the recent history of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va). Byrd is 91 years old and has served in the Senate for 50 years. Yet, his health has recently been described as "declining." Many have also questioned Senator Byrd's mental fitness for service as a senator. Such questions become more valid when one observes his recent speeches. One in particular, from Feb. 5, 2008 on the Senate floor, comes to mind. While making this speech, Byrd (who is also President Pro Tempore of the Senate and three heartbeats from the presidency) appeared seriously disoriented much of the time and even spoke about a senator from Timbuktu. Knowing this, it is hard not to wonder how effective such a person can be for his or her constituents.
Be the first to comment on this story