8
The observer | friDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2023 | ndsmcobserver.com
Why we don’t see term limits in Congress Blake Ziegler News with Zig
On Tuesday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced that she would not be seeking re-election in 2024. This revelation should come as no surprise, as speculation about her departure from politics has been anticipated for some time now. Some prominent California Democrats even announced campaigns for Sen. Feinstein’s seat before the announcement, such as Representatives Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. Over the years, discussions about the oldest senator’s fitness for office mirrors the national debate over term limits for members of Congress. In many ways, the media treats Sen. Feinstein as an embodiment of the issue. Concerns over her declining mental capacity, her tenure in the senate (over thirty years!), and speaking bluntly on when she should’ve retired are the same talking points employed when discussing term limits. Some articles about Sen. Feinstein discussed term limits themselves as a way to avoid future situations like the senator. As such, Sen. Feinstein’s retirement allows us to consider the term limits debate one more time. Although we don’t have term limits for members of Congress, the debate over whether to have them has occurred throughout American history. Even at the Founding, the framers argued over whether term limits should be included in the Constitution itself. In Federalist 62, we find opposition to term limits. Their argument was that governing effectively requires elected officials to be in office long enough to acquire “a knowledge of the means by which” to be strong leaders. Other framers reasoned that because representatives only served two-year terms, term limits aren’t necessary. If that failed, the electorate could force politicians into retirement by voting them out of office. After the Founding, the debate over term limits didn’t rise to the national level again until President Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke precedent and was elected to four terms as president. Since then, various senators and representatives have advocated for term limits to no avail. We even see these efforts today. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently submitted legislation to add congressional term limits to the Constitution. Additionally, part of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) concessions to far-right Republicans included a floor vote on term limits. There’s also vast public support for the measure. According to a 2021 survey, 80% of voters are in favor of such a constitutional amendment, including 87% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats. There’s more agreement on term limits than abortion, gun control, health care, and more. On an issue with such vast public and bipartisan support, we’d expect this to be one of the few pieces of legislation to pass with ease. The lack of success raises the question of why term limits haven’t been instituted. Research can point to three obstacles that have prevented the passage of term limits legislation. First, lack of substantial resources prevents adequate momentum to pass any proposal regarding term limits.
Scholars note that it’s often one or a few members of Congress who advocate heavily for term limits. Even then, it’s among a number of other congressional reforms that tend to take precedent. For instance, Speaker McCarthy also conceded a number of other reforms to the House’s governing rules, likely leaving term limits on the backburner. Sen. Cruz’s bill was introduced less than a month ago, so we can’t expect much movement at this point. However, if it’s anything like his other term limits resolutions, it won’t get far. His previous efforts, whether under a Democratic or Republican Senate, didn’t get past the committee stage. Although we’ve seen term limits be proposed throughout history, there simply aren’t enough elected officials supporting it to move it forward. Second, the political reality of Congress imposing term limits on itself diminishes any hope of it actually happening. There is little reason to suspect that individuals who ordinarily act out of self-interest would willingly act against their personal benefit, especially the U.S. Congress. Ironically, the last time Congress imposed term limits was when a president elected four times. At that point, Congress wasn’t reflecting the will of the people at all by limiting the power of a popular president. Now, when the public does support term limits, we see no movement because it affects members of Congress. When we do see action on term limits, it’s often minimal and primarily done for press coverage, especially for congressional candidates who want to brand themselves as anti-establishment. Third, the logistics behind an amendment on congressional term limits presents an enormous hurdle. The process of amending the Constitution itself is already challenging, requiring either a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Then, either three-fourths of the states or delegates at the convention must ratify the amendment. With the Constitution only being ratified twenty-seven times in U.S. history and polarization in Congress at its highest in decades, we can see why this is extremely unlikely to happen. This also assumes that elected officials can agree on the exact number of terms a representative or senator may serve. The lack of substantial momentum on congressional term limits reveals that the U.S. Congress is often unresponsive to public opinion. This is especially disappointing on an issue with such vast support in the American electorate. This points to a larger issue of how the legislative branch can be better structured to serve the people of this country, but that requires a much longer column. Blake Ziegler is a senior at Notre Dame studying political science, philosophy and constitutional studies. He enjoys writing about Judaism, the good life, pressing political issues and more. Outside of The Observer, Blake serves as president of the Jewish Club and a teaching assistant for God and the Good Life. He can be reached at @NewsWithZig on Twitter or bziegler@nd.edu. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
Junior Parents Weekend isn’t onesize-fits-all Junior Parents Weekend is an opportune time to ref lect on nearly three full years under the Golden Dome. For Notre Dame students who began their college careers under the shadow of steep COVID-19 infection rates and assiduous HERE ambassadors, the weekend is an opportunity for families to come together and celebrate how much the class of 2024 has grown. But as juniors prepare for the festivities, we must acknowledge this weekend is not easy for everyone. The name alone implies that students have two parents with the financial means to travel to South Bend and shell out nearly $300 for both of them to attend programming. For many students, this is simply not feasible. On top of the cost, the University assumes a certain level of knowledge about JPW and the University itself, and those with an existing family connection to the University are more likely to feel welcomed by the programming. Notre Dame is known for admitting a high number of legacy students — students with a parent or close relative that attended the same institution. Each Notre Dame class typically consists of 20 to 25% who are children of alumni. It can sometimes feel like every student has a sibling, parent, uncle or great-great-grandparent who went to Notre Dame. As JPW approaches, bear in mind that some students may have lost a parent or guardian; some may be navigating the dynamics of divorced parents; others might have a difficult home life. Parents of international students may face difficulty coordinating f lights and travel documents, and first-generation, low-income families might confront similar obstacles. Even with support from the Office of Student Enrichment, availing those resources and financial assistance comes with plentiful stress, expectations and hoops to jump through. There also exists a social barrier for some families. Same-sex parents of Notre Dame students may experience an added level of stress in trying to visit a campus with policies and people that can be less than welcoming. A lack of inclusive activities, such as nonreligious events or services, may even deter parents from even considering to visit at all. So, check in on your friends this weekend. Spend time with them, especially if you know the title of “Junior Parents Weekend” may surface insecurities, doubts or worries. And if you don’t feel like this weekend is for you, take comfort in your own tri-campus family — whoever that may be, whatever that may look like. No matter your situation, take time to ref lect this weekend and participate in the events you wish to attend. Even if your parents or guardians can’t attend, this weekend is still for you We hope this editorial serves as a reminder that Junior Parents Weekend can and should be treasured, but we should do so without assuming all students will be able to bring their loved ones to campus. W hile we do not want to ignore the storied tradition of JPW, the University can and should do more to be inclusive in its programming toward those who might not have the means to celebrate their college accomplishments with their family. W hile accommodations exist for families who might struggle to make it to campus, they are not widely publicized in messages about the weekend, and this lack of acknowledgement only deepens feelings of isolation. It should not be on individual students to uncover, dig for or seek out the assistance they need. In its communications about the weekend, the University seems to send the message that if you don’t have two parents who are willing to travel to South Bend, you aren’t “normal.” The student body should push back on that narrative by championing a more inclusive weekend and reassuring friends that they should celebrate however they feel most comfortable. So when you inevitably run into juniors and their parents walking around campus or checking out the South Bend bar scene, remember that there is no right or wrong way to share the tri-campus with your loved ones.