'Lifelong perch:' Aging, dying Congress revives debate over long-held power, term limits
Discussion over congressional term and age limits has been revived following Lindsey Graham, Kay Granger deaths and Mitch McConnell ongoing health crisis.
The recent illnesses and deaths of several prominent, long-serving members of Congress have renewed public debate over term limits and age limits for federal lawmakers – of which there are presently none.
Omitting such limits was intentional on the part of the American founders, Clark Neily, senior vice president for Legal Studies at the Cato Institute, told Just the News, despite the astronomical growth of congressional power in the years since.
Once the most constrained branch of power, congressional authority has significantly increased since America’s founding due to expanded Commerce Clause interpretation, massive bureaucracy and spending power, and delegation of rulemaking authority to federal agencies.
“The Founders were well aware of term limits as a concept, and in fact the Articles of Confederation, which the U.S. Constitution replaced, provided that no legislator could serve more than three years out of any six-year period,” Neily said.
“James Madison and others believed that experience was necessary in order to master the kinds of complex policy issues that legislators must grapple with, and because they believed that elections would naturally produce a desirable amount of turnover.”
Today, senators may run for unlimited six-year terms, while House Representatives may run for unlimited two-year terms.
However, a recent poll found that 8-in-10 Americans across the political spectrum support congressional term limits and age restrictions.
Organizations such as the Convention of States advocate using Article V of the Constitution – which allows two-thirds of state legislatures to call a special meeting to suggest change – to impose such limits.
The push for term limits has been reignited recently following the ailments and deaths of a U.S. senator and one House member, several of whom have been accused of concealing their true health status from constituents, particularly when their absence results in an inability to participate in important congressional votes.
New Jersey Democratic Rep. Tom Kean Jr. faced scrutiny when he disappeared from Congress for four months – missing 140 votes – and later revealed an ongoing struggle with depression, for which the 57-year-old was receiving treatment.
Critics cited lack of accountability due to the Constitution not having attendance or voting requirements for members of Congress.
Kentucky GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell has been absent from Congress for over seven weeks after injuries from a fall June 14 resulting in hospitalization—information he initially withheld from the public.
McConnell’s perceived lack of transparency sparked criticism by his state's governor, Democrat Andy Beshear, and others, who say the senator has failed to provide a return date to Congress.
"When you represent the people of Kentucky, and you've been in a hospital for a month, and you've missed all the votes, you owe your boss an explanation,” Beshear said in one statement.
McConnell, 84, has held a seat in Congress for 41 years.
It is not uncommon for members of Congress to hold office for decades, and maintain positions long into the standard retirement age until death.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, 71, passed away July 11 after serving a total of 31 years in Congress, and Texas Representative Kay Granger, 83, passed away on August 3 after serving 28 years, making them the 29th and 30th members to have died in office since 2010.
Today, there are currently eight senators in their 40s, 22 in their 50s, 33 in their 60s, 28 in their 70s, seven in their 80s and one, Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, is in his 90s.
Critics have gone so far as to assert that “the House and Senate are not retirement homes” and that a lack of term and age limits has created a stagnated elite class of career politicians rather than a vibrant democracy made of civil servants.
“While term limits wouldn't shrink Congress's actual authority, they would at least interrupt the incentive structure that rewards careerism over craftsmanship, making the job less appealing to status-seekers and less of a lifelong perch,” Neily added.