|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Why America Needs Constitutional Term-Limits
By Wade Holt
In the United States today, political office too often resembles a throne more than a term of service. But it was not always this way.
In the early years of our Republic, serving in Congress was understood as a civic duty — not a profession. The Founders envisioned a legislature of citizen-servants: farmers, lawyers, merchants, and tradesmen who left their private lives temporarily to represent their communities, then returned home to live under the laws they created.
Members earned six dollars a day while in session — enough to enable participation, but never enough to cultivate careerism.
Over time, that vision changed. As the government expanded following the Civil War and into the 20th century, Washington transformed into a full-time political capital. What began as civic service gradually hardened into a political career.
The Rise of the Political Class
Even towering figures of the Senate and House illustrate the danger of power without limits. Robert C. Byrd served 51 years in the Senate and 57 years in Congress. John Dingell served 59 years and 21 days in the House. Strom Thurmond remained in the Senate until age 100.
These are not merely long résumés — they are warnings. When service stretches across half a century, it ceases to be a public duty and becomes a political dynasty. Power hardens, accountability erodes, and the office begins to serve the person rather than the people.
“The Founders did not shed blood to replace monarchs with career politicians.”
Members of Congress now earn $174,000 annually, receive generous benefits, and wield influence unmatched by nearly any other profession. Longevity — not merit — has become the currency of power. The longer one remains in office, the more insulated one becomes from the citizens they represent. They forget they were sent to represent the people, not themselves.
And the truth is clear: Washington will never voluntarily limit itself. Power never surrenders power. The American people must reclaim it.
Why Article V Is Not a Risk — It’s a Responsibility
Nearly nine in ten Americans support congressional term-limits:
- 87% — Pew Research Center
- 83% — Program for Public Consultation
- 83% — U.S. Term-Limits (Jan. 2025)
Congress knows its approval ratings sit in the single digits, and that an overwhelming majority of Americans demand term limits — yet it continues to ignore those pleas. When overwhelming majorities of citizens agree across party lines, continued resistance is not principled — it is institutional self-preservation. When Congress disregards the will of 87% of the American people, it reveals just how insulated and self-serving it has become. In doing so, Congress itself becomes the strongest argument for an Article V Convention of the States.
Some critics fear an Article V convention, suggesting it could “run away.” But the Constitution prevents that:
- States control the delegates — not Congress.
- Only amendments can be proposed — not a new Constitution.
- Three-fourths (38 states) must ratify — nothing radical can pass.
If 38 states must approve it, how could tyranny possibly emerge? Those who fear the process are often those who benefit from avoiding reform.
The Founders deliberately gave the states this tool because they fully expected a time would come when Congress would refuse to restrain itself. That time is now.
This movement is not partisan — it is constitutional. It is rooted in the belief that sovereignty rests with the people and the states, not an entrenched political class.
A Republic of Citizen-Servants
The Constitution begins with three simple words: We the People — not We the Politicians.
America does not need permanent officeholders. It needs temporary stewards. It does not need a ruling class. It needs citizen-servants. And it does not need revolution — it needs constitutional restoration.
Power unused is power surrendered. We have the tools to fix Washington. We only need the courage to pick them up and use them.
With thoughtful planning, state leadership, and public resolve, we can return power to the people, restore trust in our institutions, and ensure Congress once again serves the Republic — not itself.
For more information, visit ConventionofStates.com and sign the petition urging your state lawmakers to support Article V reform. Together — as We the People — we can renew the promise of representative government and secure America’s future.
Wade Holt is a citizen-advocate for constitutional reform and accountable government.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Opinion
When anything comes along that tells me I can’t vote for who I want and who I thinks been doin’ the job, I oppose that. That includes term limits.
Just wondering, so you would be for doing away with the two term limit on the president ?
Bye the way, Just wondering…….no relation to Ron “Wondering” . ? LOL 🙂
Great article Wade, the Founders never envisioned a professional government, it was designed as a government that was completely run by private citizens, according to The Federalist Papers, a ‘Government Class’ was one of their fears, for the reasons we are seeing now. We have long term politicians that never had a private sector job telling everyone what to do, which is not the design in the Constitution the people are to tell of Representatives what to do, we do not have ‘Leaders’
Interesting that those in Congress manufactured this financial “crises” and still get paid. Yet many are not getting paid–Air traffic controllers and many are being dismissed. To get a meaning to all this, Congress should be the first tom loose any pay. But many are millionaires and can afford not to get paid. The upside-down cake. Like to see Balint, Welch & Sanders cry dried tears. It’s been reported Balint in a short time is a millionaire.
Personally I think that what is good for the goose… There is a two term limit on the president, and for good reason IMO. By not following that limit on other offices, are we saying that other elected public “servants” are less likely to abuse or take advantage of their positions ? Ayeya, how’s that working ? Let’s ask Nancy, and Paul Pelosi . How about asking Boinie ? Which house should we address the envelope too ? Oh yeah, Boinie stated that he is a millionaire because his wife wrote a book, “If you want to be millionaire, write a book”. Yup, I’m sure that a book by Pat Finnie would shoot straight to the top of the NYT best sellers.
Huge book deal advances are nothing but payola on a book that virtually no one reads.
Now where else can you get a good paycheck, snap food card, housing, paid transportation, kickback bribes, and get a good retirement producing nothing. Comment from Richard Day. You also can get your name put on important buildings like in Burlington Vermont.
Mday, May I paraphrase your comment ? Where else could a societal leach be rewarded by getting so much for doing so little ? (freebies) Just look at our legislators. Not only do they want a raise, they want more time to wreak havoc on taxpayers . When it comes to rewarding gamers of the system, Liberals, and their government know no peers.
Excellent article Wade! Thanks! We need our State Legislators to vote the resolution out of committee this upcoming session and make Vermont one of brave states to do so. There’s 19 states and 15 more are needed to call a convention of states. Let’s do this!!
I have also been told that that is what the ballot box is for, but nevertheless, once they’re in, they work to bring home the pork to their states, so they look good! However, if the pork were to stay in our pockets, we wouldn’t need to try to pry it back after it gets filtered by our congressmen and women as well as the bureaucrats and only get back pennies on the dollar if our i’s are dotted and our t’s are crossed correctly. :o)
JMO, but this “pork’ that is brought back to home states is decided by seniority. If there were two, or even three year term limits on all Federal offices that “pork” would be divided up between a much larger pool, and thus more equitable. That would also mean up to 6 years in the House, and up to18 years in the Senate, totaling a possible 24 years on the public payroll. If that is not enough time to bring your agenda to fruition, it was not meant to be. If your engenda is achieved, take the win and the adulations of your constituency, and retire undefeated !
Should have read, “two or three term limits,” not, If there were two, or even three year term limits
I wonder how we could get our federal representatives pay packages transferred back to their states rather than federal budget items they vote on?
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 system which they knew down the road could be weaponized and used against political opponents. 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. Scratch a progressive and you’ll find a fascist.
REPEAL THE 17th AMENDMENT
Nothing gets passed in the Senate because the Senators do not represent their States, they represent their Parties. Imagine what the makeup of the Senate would be if all the States controlled by Republican legislatures sent two Senators to Congress that can be recalled and replaced at any time by their legislators for not doing a good job. It would mean no more lifetime Senators.