By Brigitte L. Nacos
There is no need for term limits in democracies--not in
local, state, and national jurisdictions. If citizens are fed up with elected
officials, as they are now with President Bush and members of Congress, they
have the power to throw the rascals out when the next election comes around. If
they are satisfied, and even happy, with the performances of the men and women
they elected, citizens should have the right of reelecting them as many times
as they want.
In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state-imposed
congressional term limits in U.S. Term Limits
v. Thornton as unconstitutional and thereby invalidated the restrictions
imposed in 23 states. The court ruled, “In the absence of a properly passed
constitutional amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own
qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the
Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the Preamble to our
Constitution, to form a "more perfect Union."
However, term limits are in place for more than a dozen
state legislatures, more than half of the governors, several of the country’s
largest cities, and many more other local jurisdictions.
Yes, I know that the proponents of term limits do not agree
with the argument that term limits are actually undemocratic. They like to point
to ancient Greece and Rome
If Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to run for a third term, he should go for it—after a referendum that repeals term limits for all elected offices in the city.
Comments