|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Wade Holt
Across the political spectrum, Americans agree on very little. But there is one reform that draws rare, overwhelming consensus: term limits for members of Congress.
A September 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 87% of Americans support term limits for Congress. A March 2023 study from the University of Maryland found 83% support for a constitutional amendment establishing term limits — including 80% of Democrats, 86% of Republicans, and 84% of Independents.
This is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue.
For more than thirty years, states have tried to express this will. In the early 1990s, many states passed their own term-limit laws for federal offices, only to see them struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court’s message was clear: if the people want term limits for Congress, the Constitution must be amended.
Article V provides two ways to do that. Congress can propose amendments — or the states can.
That second path is the focus of the Convention of States Project, which asks state legislatures to apply for a convention limited to proposing amendments that include term limits, fiscal restraints, and limits on federal power.
Americans are increasingly alarmed by the federal government’s unsustainable spending and rising debt. For decades, citizens have called for a balanced budget amendment, yet Congress has never seriously advanced one to the states. Regardless of which party holds power, Washington has shown little appetite for placing binding limits on itself.
The Framers anticipated that Congress might one day resist limiting its own power. That is why they gave the states a remedy.
Supporters of J.R.H.1 argue that this is precisely why Article V exists — as a constitutional remedy when Congress proves unwilling to address structural problems of its own making.
If 34 states apply, Congress must call the convention. Any amendment proposed would still require 38 states to ratify before becoming law.
This is a constitutional process, not a political protest.
Recently, Kansas became the 20th state to pass such a resolution. Only 14 more are needed to trigger the process.
Here in Vermont, the resolution is J.R.H.1. Yet despite the broad public support for term limits and the constitutional nature of the proposal, the legislation has struggled to receive even a hearing for discussion and a vote.
That is the real issue.
Legislators are elected to represent their constituents, not to decide which ideas are permitted to be discussed. When proposals with overwhelming public support are prevented from even reaching the committee table, it sends a troubling message: that Vermonters cannot be trusted to evaluate the merits of a constitutional process for themselves.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether an Article V convention is the right approach. But preventing the discussion entirely denies Vermonters a voice in a matter where the public has clearly spoken.
Term limits are popular because many Americans believe Congress has become disconnected from the people it serves. The same frustrations are often voiced about state and local government. Whether one supports or opposes J.R.H.1, the people of Vermont deserve an open debate and a recorded vote from their representatives.
That is how representative government is supposed to work.
If you believe Vermonters deserve to have their voices heard on this issue, contact your representative and ask them to support giving J.R.H.1 a fair hearing. Meanwhile, you can go to conventionofstates.com and sign the petition that will be sent to your representative, letting them know that you are in favor of reining in our Congress.
Let the discussion happen. Let the vote happen. Let Vermonters be heard.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Legislation
If we had term limits, think of the chaos that would create. Not for the citizens, but for all the billionaires, oligarchs, and Epsteins of the country that would need to corrupt a whole new set of congressmen and senators every few years.
We had term limits until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913. How were so many people deluded in 1913? Not only was the Federal Reserve established, but tariffs which funded the government were eliminated and the Progressive income tax (16th Amendment) was installed to make sure everybody paid their “fair share”, when in reality they installed a tax system which they knew down the road could be weaponized and used against citizens and political opponents alike. Then they passed the 17th Amendment allowing the Senators to be elected to office instead of being appointed by the state legislatures bypassing the natural term limits the founders built into Constitution. Right after all the Senators were bought up by the special interests of the day, they turned around and passed laws allowing them to create foundations so they could circumvent the income tax. All this was done under the father of Progressivism, President Woodrow Wilson. And the United States has never been the same. The camel got more than his nose under the tent. It’s why we’re in the situation we are in today with Senators for life and clamoring for term limits. It makes you wonder what the balance would be in the Senate if the 17th Amendment repealed and the Senators were appointed by the state’s legislatures.
J.R.H.1 and Amendment V . First I’ve heard about it and the letters, numbers and Roman Numerals mean nothing to me. Please elaborate.
Hi Dan,
I have copied the Joint Resolution House 1 and the Fifth Article of the Constitution below for you. Article V (five) is part of the original Constitution setting up the government. It outlines the process of making amendments to the Constitution, granting power to either Congress or 34 states that privilege. With 20 states signing onto the below resolution and needing 14 more states to do so, the opportunity is there to add amendments that Congress does not want or will not make. It grants US the people to do it for them without them being able to ignore it.
Joint House Resolution Referred to Committee
J.R.H. 1
Offered by Representative Higley of Lowell
Joint resolution constituting an application for a convention of the States
under Article V of the United States Constitution
Whereas, the founders of our Constitution empowered State Legislators to
be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal
government, and
Whereas, the federal government has created a crushing national debt
through improper and imprudent spending, and
Whereas, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the
states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are
unfunded to a great extent, and
Whereas, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper
interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, and
Whereas, it is the solemn duty of the States to protect the liberty of our
people—particularly for the generations to come—by proposing Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States
under Article V for the purpose of restraining these and related abuses of
power, now therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:
That the General Assembly of the State of Vermont hereby applies to
Congress under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United
States, and be it further
Resolved: That the General Assembly requests that the convention of the
States be limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United
States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power
and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its
officials and for members of Congress, and be it further
Resolved: That this application constitutes a continuing application in
accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until the
legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made applications
on the same subject, and be it further
Resolved: That the Secretary of State be directed to send a copy of this
resolution to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate, to the
Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, to the
members of the Vermont Congressional Delegation, and to the presiding
officers of each of the legislative houses in the several States, requesting their
cooperation.
Was read, treated as bill, and referred to the Committee on Government
Operations and Military Affairs pursuant to House Rule 52.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Never fear, the United States is thirty eight trillion dollars in debt and our two pork master senators are bringing back to the Vermont poor, millions of dollars to bail out this state.
I just don’t understand the idea that while a President is limited to two terms, that Senator and Representatives are not. I mean I understand that they would essenually have to set any limits on themselves. Are they all, to a man and/or woman, so disingenuous that they believe that they are the only people that should be elected to these offices ? Do they think that once they are there they are irreplaceable ? Are they really that full of themselves ? And now the hard question. Are the electorate so stupid that they believe these self grandizing blowhards, That quesstion is rethoical as the proof is unfortunately in the pudding. Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back ?
Yes
Thousands of websites are covering the Epstein files and this is going to cause a lot of problems for these sick twisted perverts, which is long overdue. Now are your house and senate members investigating these crooks??????
I’ve always said term limits will force the senators and representatives to focus more on their function and less on the re-election war chest donations. It will also keep the paid lobbyists from getting too “chummy” with the longtime incumbents.
A very good article outlining this process.
Looking at our situation of trillions of dollars in debt and billions of fraud in Minneapolis alone it is hard to say the system is not broken. We must make changes or we are doomed by our own corruption and inaction.
Term limits, fiscal restraint and bureaucratic restraint will go a long way to curbing the excess of congress. Article V can do this.
The state legislators are the only people who can initiate this solution. As noted in the article 80% of American voters favor these changes. Vermonters pride themselves on being progressive. This would be true progress.
As individual voters can help by signing the petition at COSAction.com. This sends a statement to our local representatives that we want this Convention of States. Our voices are critical. Please sign the petition. Let’s do this.