Term Limits Across the Board

Americans amazingly elected a man who campaigned on the idea of change in 2008. Alas, we have learned that he was joking, and meant by change solely that he would be a different person than George the Second. However, we couldn't be happier, because we secretly fear change deeply. You can see this easily in how many Congressmen we re-elect every cycle, rather than adding fresh blood to the proceedings. Note that this is not a partisan idea of mine, which is rare indeed. The reason I started to think about this was certainly started by Strom Thurmond and reestablished by the deaths of Ted Kennedy and John Murtha. Death is only another problem to add to being a geriatric Congressmen. This is not a statement of ineffectiveness, rather an indictment of trying to establish policies from a standpoint fifty years north of the median age.



The policies of of nation are currently being dictated by people averaging 61 years of age (Senate, 56 in the House). This means they were alive for the Vietnam War, College students during Nixon's administration, probably highly confused by computers and the Internet, and sort of amazed by cell phone sizes. (Yes, I recognize that some people are less resistant to technological advances, and some older people can be tech-savvy.) I admire the level of dedication (or resistance) that these men have for serving the nation, but I don't believe they serve the nation's best interests. The policy decisions made by the Senate, House, and Supreme Court reek of antiquity with a lack of foresight and general care for their progeny. Fifty-nine years ago, we decided that a President should be given no more than two terms, holding to a standard that had existed for 148 years of history. This was a move made more out of resistance to the power Roosevelt had accumulated rather than his aging while in office. Why not accept the same for Supreme Court justices and Congressmen?

The idea of collecting power does not apply only to the President but Congressmen as well. Look at the amount they allow an obviously senile Robert Byrd to speak. He's 92 years old, even past shuffleboard age, and they still have him as a legislator. He was born during World War I for Christ's sake. Ted Kennedy was probably the most highly revered Democrat at this passing, but in 46 years of service, one could expect that. In the Supreme Court, it's different. It's not an issue of power, but an issue of distance from the actual modern age. Their last decision was the worst in history, and really outdoing Plessy v. Ferguson or the Dred Scott decision was almost impossible. The idea that they cannot logically look at a problem at make a reasoned decision reeks of the indifference of age not the wisdom supposedly gained.

Let's begin with the House of Representatives. I said the median age of a Representative was 56. This incorporates a wide range, and I'm okay with the idea that younger men should first be Representatives then Senators. However, it doesn't eliminate men who have been here forever. John Dingell was in Congress during the Eisenhower administration; he started 54 years ago. My father was ten and he is now eligible for Social Security. Obviously, we cannot put age limits on office as it is discriminatory, but capping the number of terms at something reasonable would be wise. Ten terms (total, consecutive or not) is a good starting point. Twenty years is longer than any President gets, and would allow both a level of continuity necessary and limit excessive spirit or vanity (Or whatever causes a man to make his whole life a public display) If a Representative wanted to remain in service, he could still run for Senate, President, become an ambassador, or take a cabinet position. And if you're elected in your twenties, like the guy from Angel and Bones, by your forties you should be ready for bigger shoes anyways.

Now Senators long terms piss me off to no end. There are only 100 Senators; we can't afford for ten of them to be on life support during crucial debates. Obviously, Robert Byrd is the grand example of longevity (and of former Klan members in Congress), Frank Lautenberg is in his fifth term and is 86, and amazingly Hawaii has two 85 year old Senators (Inouye has been in Congress for his state's entire statehood). While these men are still alive (and probably for their ages, well-to-do **cough, cough** government health care) and doing their jobs, they all have viewpoints that come from a completely different era. Notably, they are all also Democrats with conversely different views than the President's own age demographic. The most debated issue of last year was health care and to think the views on it don't differ with age, look around. Look at the age of Tea Party activists; they are senior citizens who don't care much for what happens in twenty years. I propose a four-term cap, because again twenty-four years is three times the President's max term length. It allows longevity, but minimizes disconnect from generational gaps.

Any changes wouldn't affect the current configuration of Congress, as all would be "Grandfathered in", but in the future would hopefully minimize such long stagnation in politics. No one is likely to have meteoric rises like President Obama had, so reasonable rates of retention could be expected and also these men who have served our country wouldn't have to live out their final years as punchlines to jokes about the elderly. The simple fact is that policy is being dictated by men in their fifties and sixties, whereas the country's leader is in his forties and his electorate much younger. Mostly I wish Democratic dinosaurs would step aside and let the younger generations, who actually believe in their platform, sell the ideas. (Funnily, the only Representative with longer than 20 years service for Missouri is the one I agree with politically more often .) It's ridiculous that we didn't establish this at same time in the 22nd Amendment, but for some reason people didn't see Senators as powerful then (McCarthy?). Nevertheless, this is just an idea coming from an American youth, and thankfully, as it is, those will never matter.


Sidenote since I said across the board:
There aren't any egregious age problems within the Supreme Court. The longest serving and oldest is John Paul Stevens, and age certainly doesn't make him less than the others. The cap here is more of a future idea, because the current court's problem isn't that they're out of date. The problem is they're a bunch of morons, and I say this from a respectable viewpoint that all of them are much more accomplished than I will ever be. They simply don't understand how their actions affect the outside world, and by "their" I'm referring to Thomas and Scalia; originalism is a short-sighted and at times useless basis for rulings. Hilariously, if the Constitution is dictated this way, judicial review should not be a part of the Supreme Court's duties, and precedents shouldn't ever be applied. While the latter is their idiotic purpose, the former would be a much easier solution to having these men decide anything important. So when I meant across the board, they should have a limit of twenty five years (again arbitrary), that would put the newest justices under 80 years of age, and that seems reasonable. At youngest, Thomas would have served until 68, and I don't see another 43 year old justice coming anytime soon. Again, this isn't applicable to the current Justices, as they wouldn't be held to policies that followed their appointments.