Why Did Congress Limit the President — but Refuse to Limit Itself?

By Lucretia Hughes Klucken

WASHINGTON — The president of the United States may serve only two elected terms. A member of Congress, however, may remain in office for decades, accumulate enormous power and repeatedly seek reelection without facing any constitutional term limit.

That raises a question Americans have every right to ask: Why did Congress help limit the president’s time in power but refuse to place the same restriction on itself?

The Constitution originally established no term limit for the presidency. George Washington voluntarily stepped away after two terms, creating a tradition that most presidents followed for nearly 150 years.

That tradition ended with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected four times and served from 1933 until his death in 1945. In response, Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment in 1947. The states ratified it in 1951.

The amendment generally prohibits a person from being elected president more than twice. Someone who assumes the presidency and serves more than two years of another president’s term may be elected only once.

Congressional service is different. Representatives serve two-year terms, while senators serve six-year terms. But the Constitution does not limit the number of times they may seek reelection.

Supporters of the current system argue that elections are term limits. If voters become dissatisfied with a member of Congress, they can vote that person out of office.

That argument sounds reasonable until the advantages of incumbency are considered.

Long-serving lawmakers build name recognition, fundraising networks, political alliances and relationships with powerful interest groups. They may gain influential committee assignments and leadership positions. Their challengers often enter a race without the money, attention or political machinery necessary to compete effectively.

The result is a system in which some lawmakers spend more time in Washington than many of their constituents have been alive.

It is true that the presidency is different from Congress. The president is one person who commands the executive branch and serves as commander in chief. Congress divides its authority among hundreds of elected members.

But divided power does not mean insignificant power.

Congress writes federal laws, approves spending, imposes taxes, confirms judges and executive officials, conducts investigations and possesses the authority to declare war. Members of Congress make decisions affecting the rights, livelihoods and futures of every American.

If remaining in the White House too long creates a danger of entrenched power, why should that concern disappear at the doors of the Capitol?

The answer may be less about constitutional philosophy and more about political reality: Members of Congress would be asked to restrict their own careers.

A congressional term-limit amendment could be proposed with the approval of two-thirds of both the House and Senate before being sent to the states. Ratification would then require approval from three-fourths of the states.

Article V provides another potential route. Two-thirds of state legislatures may apply for a convention to propose constitutional amendments. Any amendment produced through that process would still require ratification by three-fourths of the states.

States cannot simply impose their own qualifications on members of Congress. In its 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that states may not add qualifications for congressional service beyond those established by the Constitution. That means binding congressional term limits would require a constitutional amendment, not merely a collection of state laws.

The debate also requires honesty about possible disadvantages.

Experienced lawmakers may possess important institutional knowledge. Regular turnover could give unelected congressional staff members, lobbyists and federal bureaucrats greater influence over inexperienced representatives. Term limits would not automatically remove corruption, reduce government spending or guarantee better leadership.

Those concerns deserve consideration. But experience should not become a permanent claim to power.

Public office was never intended to be personal property. A congressional seat belongs to the people, not to the politician occupying it.

Reasonable term limits could allow lawmakers sufficient time to learn their responsibilities and serve effectively without turning public service into a lifetime profession. Proposals have varied, but the principle remains the same: Political authority should eventually return to new representatives chosen from among the people.

Congress acted after Roosevelt’s four elections because Americans feared allowing one president to remain in power indefinitely. The nation amended its Constitution to prevent that situation from happening again.

Yet Congress preserved unlimited reelection for its own members.

That is the contradiction.

The same government that decided eight years was generally enough for a president has allowed senators and representatives to remain in Washington for 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years.

Presidential term limits may be justified. The real question is why the reasoning behind them has never been applied to the people who wrote the restriction.

If concentrated power becomes dangerous with time in the White House, Americans should ask why it becomes acceptable when it is accumulated on Capitol Hill.

Congress limited the president.

Now the American people must decide whether it is time to limit Congress.