The Unspoken Question In Term Limit Debate

Few issues ignite more passionate debate than whether elected officials should face term limits.

Polls consistently show strong public support for limiting the number of years members of Congress may serve. Others argue that experience is invaluable and that voters — not the government — should decide who remains in office. The question is not merely a political one. It is constitutional, historical, and is deeply rooted in the American experiment itself.

The Framers of the Constitution deliberately established different rules for different offices. Presidents serve fixed terms; members of Congress stand for election at regular intervals and federal judges enjoy life tenure during good behavior to preserve judicial independence from political pressure. These distinctions were not unintentional. They reflected careful consideration of the unique responsibilities each branch of government would perform. (RELATED: JD FOSTER: Term Limits Would Be The Swamp’s New BFF)

Yet the Constitution also embodies an equally important principle: government derives its just powers from the consent of the people or those who are governed. Elections are the mechanism through which that consent is periodically renewed. Every two years for the House of Representatives, every six years for the Senate, and every four years for the presidency, the people are asked a simple question: “Who........

© The Daily Caller