Brian Herr on Government Reform

If we want new ideas, send new people, via term limits

Herr continued: "The Founding Fathers envisioned individuals serving our country then returning to their everyday lives. This is a far cry from today's reality, in which many Members of Congress have spent decades in those chambers."

Herr proposes to limit U.S. House Members to six two-year terms and U.S. Senate Members to two six-year terms. Recognizing the need for practical support from Incumbents, the change would not be applied retroactively to current Members of Congress but would begin upon their next election.

If we want new ideas in Washington, we must send new people

Herr proposes limiting U.S. House members to six two-year terms and limiting U.S. Senators to two six-year terms. "Recognizing the need for practical support from incumbents, the change (should) not be applied retroactively to current members of Congress but would begin upon their next election," the press release reads. Herr said the country's Founding Fathers envisioned lawmakers returning to their everyday lives after serving, not staying in power for decades.

Signed term limit pledge: 6 years House; 12 years Senate.

Organizational Self-Description: U.S. Term Limits, the nation's oldest and largest term limits advocacy group, announced that 14 new signers of its congressional term limits amendment pledge have been elected to the 114th Congress. The group includes five new senators, eight new House members and one House incumbent who signed the pledge for the first time this cycle. The pledge calls for members to co-sponsor and vote for a constitutional amendment limiting House members to three terms (six years) and Senators to two terms (12 years). The USTL President said, "The American people are fed up with career politicians in Washington and strongly embracing term limits as a remedy. Gallup polling shows that 75% of Americans support term limits."

Opposing legal argument: [ACLU, Nov. 7, 2014]: In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (May 22, 1995), the Court ended the movement to enact term limits for Congress on a state-by-state basis. The Court held that the qualifications for Congress established in the Constitution itself could not be amended by the states without a constitutional amendment, and that the notion of congressional term limits violates the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy 'that the people should chose whom they please to govern them.'"

Opposing political argument: [Cato Institute Briefing Paper No. 14, Feb. 18, 1992]: Several considerations may explain political scientists' open hostility to term limitation:

• Political scientists were instrumental in promoting the professionalization of legislators.
• They are cynical about the attentiveness, general knowledge, and judgmental capacity of the average voter.
• They are committed to the conservation of leadership.
• They perceive attacks on professional politicians as a threat to their own self-proclaimed professionalism.
• And political partisanship may encourage them to oppose term limits.