12-year term limits for National Office

People stay in office way too long. Over a hundred members have served for more than thirty-five years, forty members of Congress have served at least FORTY YEARS in their seats, with half a dozen over FIFTY years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

Citizens born after they were first elected can have grandchildren in that amount of time.

Likewise, more than a dozen Supreme Court Justices have been in office more than thirty years, with William O. Douglas lasting more than 36! Way, way too long.

Conversely, Presidents (i.e. POTUS) are only elected twice before term limits kick in. This means that for half the time they are in office, they are unaccountable directly to voters. HALF! Think back on the presidencies of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon. When they at their worst? Last term. Because they didn't have to worry about being reelected.

So, I propose that, by amending the Constitution, all National Elected Offices be restricted (or in the case of POTUS, extended) to exactly 12 years concurrent. This would ensure much, much more turnover in Congress and the Supreme Court (thereby making them more representational and accountable). Ideally I'd like the Chief Justice to be an elected office as well (as the tie-breaker); the other 8 (12?) Justices would be still appointed for 12 years at a time, but there should be at least some direct representation by the people.

The President would also be more accountable, since we would have two chances to throw him/her out of office instead of just one. They'd only be directly unaccountable for a third of the time, instead of half. I also propose decoupling and staggering the Vice-Presidential election so that if the POTUS is screwing up, we can elect his main rival to VP.

So here's what my election cycle would look like (assuming term limits for all):

Year 00: New POTUS, all new House of Representatives, and 1st third of the Senate up for election.

Year 02: New Vice-President, New Chief Justice, the House, and 2nd third of the Senate.

Year 04: POTUS, the House, last third of the Senate.

Year 06: VP, Chief Justice, the House, and 1st/3rds Senate (last election for them)

Year 08: POTUS (last election), the House, 2nd/3rds Senate (last election for them).

Year 10: VP (last) & Chief Justice (last), the House (last election for '00 class), last 3rd Senate (last).

Year 12: New POTUS, new House and new 1/3 Senate (all from '00 election term limited).

Year 14: New VP, New Chief Justice, House, new 2nd third of the Senate.

Year 16: POTUS, House, new last third of the Senate.

And so on.

This amendment (12 years for all) would make the government more representative, dynamic, and, oddly, more contiguous because the VP and POTUS change power at different times. Seniority as a perk would be all-but-gone, and voters would be more inclined to send the best (or at least the most representative) officials to create laws respecting the will of the people.

Of course, I'd also like all laws to expire after 12 years as well...

Supreme Court Amendment(s?)

There is almost nothing in the Constitution about the Supreme Court, or about the judicial branch in general. So we might as well establish their power to overturn unconstitutional laws within the constitution itself, but with a few tweaks.

For instance, the US Supreme Court should only be allowed to throw out federal laws, not state laws, they have their own supreme courts. However, they should be able to nullify international treaties, since those are federal. Lower courts should have the same powers.

While we're at it, we need way more circuit courts... How about starting at 50 (one per state) and adding as needed. Right now there's too much power in too few hands.

Lastly, there needs to be a fixed number of Justices in the Constitution. Right now the number of 9 is only by law and tradition, it needs to be more foundational. I propose that we should have 12, which would mean both higher turnover and less impact from a single nominee. Yes, that is an even number, which is where the Chief Justice comes in. He should vote only for tie votes (which would be less frequent with a larger court).

Now for the most controversial idea: the Chief Justice should be an elected position. I know the reasons for appointments... impartiality and all that. But think about it, the people of the USA only vote for one, ONE national office, that of the President (paired with the VP). They need more say. And there's little public influence or accountability in the Judicial branch. Making the head of that branch open to public scrutiny and approval would be good for our democratic republic, and with the actual voting power weakened, the Chief Justice would be more of a symbolic figurehead, a spokesman for the judicial system, for good or ill.

Optimally, the Chief would be elected ever four years, 2 years out of phase from the presidential elections. This would prevent it from being overshadowed by that election, and raise the profile of congressional elections.




Lurker
(yes, I do think about these things)