The time I’ve spent watching Democrat senators during the ongoing confirmation hearings for President Trump’s nominees has been beyond tiresome. How discouraging for our weary nation to witness such posturing by some of the worst people in government — especially after this past election brought such a sense of hope. So many treacherous frauds like Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), hysterical ninnies like Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and clueless hacks who contribute nothing worthwhile like Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and so little space to list them all.
These hyper-partisan Democrat senators are fundamentally vile, destructive people. What an embarrassment, and on live TV, no less, where the whole world can see it. What a disgrace. America deserves so much better.
Let’s recall that, recently, the country was treated to the spectacle of two elderly politicians — a non compos mentis, ninety-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and an obviously frail and failing Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) — struggling to function in the Senate at even the most basic level, yet refusing to leave office until carried out on a gurney.
The idea of imposing term limits on our elected officials is gaining momentum.
The idea has a lot of appeal, no doubt. The suggestion of term limits is sometimes greeted with the comment “we already have term limits — they’re called elections.” Is that really working? It doesn’t seem so. But are term limits really the best way to solve the problem? If so, are they needed in both chambers of Congress?
Elections-as-term-limits do seem to work in the House, where representatives run every two years. Representatives are answerable to a much smaller constituency, interfacing with them more frequently and more closely than what senators have. Frequent elections mean that representatives don’t tend to have long careers — especially undesirable representatives. Yes, there are exceptions, but they seem to come from hyper-blue states that are widely suspected of voter fraud (looking at you, CA and NY).
No, the problem seems to exist mainly in the Senate. Most politicians with thirty-plus-year careers come from the Senate. Nearly all frail, superannuated politicians come from the Senate. Most unexplainably wealthy, and likely corrupt, politicians come from the Senate.
So should we have term limits in the Senate? The Senate is clearly a mess, and it seems pretty much dysfunctional. But how did we arrive at this point? Was it caused by a defect in the Constitution? Not at all. The Founders intended that senators be appointed by their respective state legislatures. It was never intended that senators be politicians, elected by the voters. They weren’t until 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified. How has that change been harmful?
The House still operates in much the way it was expected to. The Founding Fathers anticipated that representatives would come from among the regular people, serving just two-year terms, probably affected by the prevailing tides of public passion, likely engaging in factious political conduct because of constant electioneering. The House would probably even produce some ill considered legislation on occasion.
The original purpose of the Senate was to create governmental stability in a way that a body like the House could not. The Founders thought it was important for the federal government to display a stable “national character” in the eyes of the world (Federalist 63, paragraph 1). Senators were originally chosen by, and accountable to, their state legislatures rather than elected by the people of the state. They had a six-year term rather than just two years to enhance that stability.
It was assumed that senators would be accomplished people, with proven talent and excellent character. They would represent the interests of their states in the federal government but would also understand and adhere to America’s founding principles (Federalist 64, paragraph 4).
The Senate was also intended as a counterbalance to the partisanship likely to emerge from the House (Federalist 62, paragraph 6). It was assumed that freedom from public politics and campaigning would enable the senators to be counted on to work together for the greater good of the nation in a dignified manner.
This planned freedom from partisan politics was the reason the Founders invested the Senate with the responsibility of deciding on legislation proposed by the House, trying impeachments, approving the ratification of treaties, and approving the appointment of federal judges, Supreme Court justices, and Cabinet members.
The ratification of the 17th Amendment has exposed the country to all the ills the Founders tried to prevent. Now that senators are elected rather than appointed, they can bypass any accountability to their state legislatures for their ethics and behavior. Most senators today aren’t accomplished, talented people of excellent character who understand America’s founding principles. They provide neither non-partisan stability nor a dignified national character while representing our nation. They are simply people who know how to win an election. These were exactly the conditions the Founders tried to prevent (Federalist 65, paragraph 2 and 3).
Today, the Senate is as hyper-political as the House ever was. The Senate is clearly unable to keep disgusting levels of partisanship out of its most vital functions, as we have recently witnessed. Worse, senators can stay in office for as long as they can keep winning elections, so long-serving senators are now extremely susceptible to corruption. There is a reason why most senators seem to retire as millionaires, even though most started with little.
This is how we end up with ignorant, talentless, obviously corrupt men like Joe Biden in the Senate. If senators were still appointed, would the Delaware state Legislature have allowed Biden to stay on for so long once it finally understood what he really was?
Do you remember when we found out that Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) had falsified his military service when he ran for office? Despite that attempt at stolen valor, he shamelessly sits today on both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs in the Senate. If senators were still appointed, do you think the Connecticut state Legislature would have been likely to keep a disgrace of a man like this as a senator?
If senators were still appointed, wouldn’t the Virginia state Legislature have been more likely to appoint an accomplished man with a sophisticated understanding of the Constitution and public affairs, like Georgetown professor Jonathan Turley, than end up stuck with a smug, partisan, silly little troll like Tim Kaine (D-Va.)? Turley would have been an asset to the Senate, regardless of his party affiliation. What earthly good is Tim Kaine to either Virginia or America?
The 17th Amendment was an ill considered step away from the original intent of the Constitution. The consequences of that step have only gotten worse since 1913, as we can clearly see. The step of imposing term limits pulls us even farther from the original design of the Founders. We should try to correct the original error that caused the problem we now face.
We should endeavor to educate voters about how the House and Senate are supposed to work. We should work to repeal the 17th Amendment for the good of America.
Image: PublicDomainPictures via Pixabay, Pixabay License.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.