Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post
Newsgroups: americast.wpost
From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com
Organization: American Cybercasting
Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com
Subject: Term Limits: Let the States Decide<BY George F. Will<
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 92 10:44:02 EST
Message-ID: <23.1992Nov26.104402@AmeriCast.com>
Lines: 104

Term Limits: Let the States Decide<BY George F. Will<

 'Tis the season to give thanks for the nation's blessings, which
include Bill Gradison, the Republican congressman from southwest
Ohio who in January will submit this constitutional amendment:
"Each state shall have the power to limit by law the number of
terms a representative or senator from that state may serve in
Congress."

 A year ago, even before the term-limitation movement acquired
its current locomotive-like momentum, Gradison wrote that
although he did not support limits, the time might come when
Congress would be honor-bound to send to the states for debate
and decision a constitutional amendment limiting terms:

 "We have to decide if we really trust the people. If we do, the
Congress will eventually submit a constitutional amendment for
congressional term limitations to the states with or without
recommendation - and then abide by the results. To continue the
present situation could well lead to Congress being one of a di-
minished number of legislative bodies in the country without term
limits, and yet afraid to let the people decide if they want lim-
its for the Congress. In my view this would only intensify the
feeling that the Congress is out of touch. But worse still, it
further undermines the sense of legitimacy of our actions without
which representative government could be viewed as a mere slogan
used by those whose overriding concern is maintaining power, not
serving the public."

 This year, when all 14 of the states that voted on term limita-
tions for Congress voted "yes," by a landslide average of 66 per-
cent, congressional careerists instantly took their cue from
Speaker Tom Foley (whose state, Washington, imposed limits on
him). Foley said, laconically and illogically: It is unconstitu-
tional for states to impose such limits; a constitutional amend-
ment is required; but such an amendment - here is Foley's
resounding non sequitur - should not be voted on until the con-
stitutionality of state-imposed limits has been litigated.

 Why not?  Foley's conclusion would seem arbitrary and self-
serving even if it were not known that the House he leads has
never allowed a term-limiting constitutional amendment to come to
a vote.

 The constitutionality of state-imposed limits on Congress is an
unsettled area of the law. And perhaps Foley really is, as he
says he is, eager for an expedited adjudication of the issue.
However, his eagerness may dissipate when he realizes that his
adversaries will include former attorney general Griffin Bell. A
term-limits supporter as ardent as he is learned, Bell believes
in the constitutionality of congressional term limits by state
action. Furthermore, Foley may actually be hoping for a long de-
lay, during which the term-limits movement - the most broadly
based grass-roots movement in more than a generation - might lose
momentum.  Readers are herewith invited to compare Foley's
evasiveness and slyness - his willingness to sacrifice the sta-
ture of the House to enhance the security of incumbents - with
Gradison's sense of institutional stewardship. In a letter sent
last week to colleagues, Gradison wrote:

 "Regardless of your view on the constitutional question, there
is a good argument for resolving this issue as soon as possible.
Public confidence in Congress will only deteriorate further if
this institution appears to be thwarting the will of the voters.
Particularly if the constitutionality of state-imposed term lim-
its is rejected by the Supreme Court, the federal legislature
cannot afford to appear illegitimate in the eyes of residents of
those states who clearly wish to regulate their representation in
the federal Congress."

 Congress may oppose Gradison's empowerment of the states simply
because the modern reflex of the federal government is to con-
strict, not enlarge, states' rights. Still, it is possible that
Gradison's challenge to let states debate and decide the issue
may embarrass even the likes of Charles Wilson into grudging sup-
port.  Wilson, a 10-term Texas Democrat and Olympic-class pander,
this year assured his district he favors term limits. But Wilson
also participated in a television commercial for the people who
tried (and failed) to persuade Californians not to enact term
limits. Come to think about it, it probably is impossible to em-
barrass the likes of Wilson.

 Today Gradison, who describes himself as "a flaming incremental-
ist," has come by increments to support term limits. His proposal
will mean incremental progress for term limitations in one of two
ways.

 If enacted, it will erase uncertainty about existing laws limit-
ing 156 representatives and 30 senators from 15 states (in one of
the 15, Missouri, limits will be triggered when 25 states adopt
limits), and will speed debates and decisions in 35 more states.
On the other hand, if Congress, in its bitter-end commitment to
careerism regardless of the cost to the institution's stature,
will not pass Gradison's amendment and abide by the results of
democratic debates, Congress will thereby provide, by its exam-
ple, a potent argument for term limits to end careerism.<02:18
11-26C9999-----

Copyright 1992, The Washington Post.  This story is from the
Washington Post's Capitol Edition On-Line and is not to be ar-
chived or redistributed.

For more information, send-email to American Cybercasting Cor-
poration (usa@AmeriCast.COM)