The Politics and Law of Term Limits

by Edward H. Crane and Roger Pilon

Book Overview

The pros and cons of the hottest political issue of the 90s.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1882577132
• ISBN13: 9781882577132
• Release Date: October 1994
• Publisher: Cato Institute
• Length: 163 Pages
• Weight: 0.51 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.4" x 6.1" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Should Terms of Office Have Set Limits?

Should we place limits on the amount of time politicians can serve in public office? This is a question with no definitive answer. In this book, "The Politics and Law of Term Limits", eleven different authors offer their perspective on the issue. The arguments against having term limits usually center on the ideal of free and absolute choice. If the people want a certain politician to remain in office for a long period of time, then they should be permitted to vote for that person for as long as he/she is willing to run for office. The other argument that's often presented is that long- term politicians are better because they have years and years of experience. Therefore, we should WANT to keep them in office, because it's better to be governed by a pro than a rookie. And, if the people decide that they no longer like the person in office, then they can show their disapproval by voting him/her out, on the next election day. Proponents of term limits state their case by pointing out, first of all, that the majority of Americans want term limits, and that we should honor the will of the people by enacting limits whenever possible. The people in this camp also emphasize that term limits are often needed to prevent tyranny and corruption. In countries where there is no limits on time served in office, elections are often rigged so that the incumbent can remain in power. Term limits would also put a halt to the phenomenon known as the "career politician" that we are now experiencing in politics. In the early part of American history, it was traditional to serve for only a few years in office, and then step down and move on to other things. Today, we have career politicians like Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond (and many, many others!) who are permanent fixtures in Washington and will likely remain there, no matter what happens. I'm undecided on the issue of term limits, but I'm leaning toward the pro- term limit camp. On one hand, I think people should be allowed to vote for whomever they choose. But, I can also see the problems that career politicians have caused and I don't see any other solution, other than term limits, to remove these people from office. I don't accept the argument that we should keep them because they are more experienced. As everyone knows, experienced politicians are usually the most dangerous of all because they have learned, through the years, how to manipulate and lie effectively to the people. Also, they are usually so set in their ways that they will not likely ever change, even if change is for the better. Yes, voters could remove them from office by simply casting a vote for someone else. But this usually doesn't happen. These career politicians are often entrenched in their respective offices. And the majority of people will just continue to vote for them, not because they agree with their stand on the issues, but because they are so familiar with their names and because most voters are apathetic and uninformed. We tend