< PREVIOUS ] [ 2010 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Recently I have received many emails that propose reform of the U.S. Congress. Most list some proposals, like limiting terms and reducing pensions. Each proposal is followed by this refrain: "Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term, then go home and back to work."
While few would argue that Congress doesn't need reform of some kind or another, there are some problems with this litany.
For one thing, when representatives and senators leave office, they seldom return to the plow, or otherwise resume life as normal folks with normal jobs. Generally they find some position that pays well and uses the connections they made in office.
In other words, Scott McInnis did not go back to issuing parking tickets in Glenwood Springs when he left Congress in 2005.
Instead, he became a partner in Hogan & Hartson, an international law practice with an office on Seventeenth Street; the firm's website states that he "focuses on state and federal regulatory and legislative matters in a wide range of areas, including natural resources, public lands, energy, agriculture, tax, and business matters. Scott has in-depth knowledge and relationships in national, Western, and Colorado politics."
Thus Congress can be a significant rung on the career ladder. After service, few need to worry about the interest rate on payday loans. They seldom go "back to work," at least in the sense of doing the work they did before getting elected.
So that part of the refrain doesn't work well in practice. Another proposed reform is that Congress should live under the same laws as the rest of us. That's no reform. As it is, senators can't be lobbyists for two years after leaving office, whereas we normal citizens can lobby any time we want to. Putting them under the same rules means they could hire on as lobbyists the moment a successor was sworn in -- or perhaps even sooner,
And the refrain strongly implies that the Founding Fathers supported term limits.
The Founding Fathers were certainly familiar with the idea. The Revolutionary War was fought under the 1777 Articles of Confederation, an alliance of the 13 colonies which became states. Each state had one vote, although it could send from two to seven delegates to Congress. And "no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years."
So there it is, the Founding Fathers in favor of a "citizen legislature."
But the Articles of Confederation didn't work well, and so in 1787 delegates convened in Philadelphia for revisions; the gathering became the Constitutional Convention.
James Madison. a career politician from Virginia, kept notes of the discussions. Term limits were on the table. A resolution about the House said members should be "incapable of re-election" for a period after their terms, The chief executive, another resolution proposed, would serve a term and be "ineligible thereafter."
Roger Sherman of Connecticut argued that limits were a bad idea because "good behavior" by public officials "ensures their re-election." The convention came to that view. There are no term limits in the original federal constitution (presidential term limits come from the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951). There are no requirements to return to one's original home and occupation after service.
So the next time somebody tries to tell you what the "Founding Fathers envisioned," you might reply that it would be a good idea to read what the Founders actually said and did, rather than make up stories.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2010 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >