In a conversation about the recent tea parties, a friend expressed his disdain for career elected officials and his desire for term limits. The comment, oddly enough, did not result in a lengthy political conversation, but it did cause me to think more deeply about the issue; particularly, about the reason why anyone would favor limiting the number of terms an individual may serve in our government.
Folks that know my political thoughts know, or can probably guess, I'm against term limits.

A quick search of a few Internet sites (salon.com, huffingtonpost.com, politico.com) yielded some insight into the arguments for and against term limits. The ones most frequently expressed on those sites were related to Senators and Representatives in the U.S. Congress, although term limits are more often used for local and state officials. The most common reason cited in their favor is the disdain for the power amassed by individuals like Senators Kennedy, Byrd and Specter, who, according to one article, have collectively spent over 90 man-years as legislators. Some believe that limiting the terms of elected officials will eliminate, or at least, substantially reduce their influence and power.

Another common argument I've heard over the years for term limits is that our founding fathers never intended elected positions to be careers. Elected government officials were supposed to serve and then return home to continue their career or profession.

Common arguments against term limits are generally related to the First Amendment (i.e., freedom of speech) and voter or state rights to elect those that can best represent their interests and in a manner and frequency of their own choosing.

The argument that the founding fathers never intended elected office to be a career is, in my opinion, moot. The assertion is a myth. Had the majority of the participants of the Constitutional Convention thought then that term limits where necessary, they would have certainly put it in the Constitution. But, as originally written, there were no such limits included in it. They didn't even limit the number of terms the President could serve; that came over 160 years later in the XXII Amendment, which was ratified in 1951. From what I've read of our country's formative period, the sentiment then was to let each state determine their own election rules.

Disdain for the amassment of power is legitimate and perhaps shared by the vast majority of voters. The question is: What is the most appropriate way to quash it? I reject the use of term limits because I think they cater to and further encourage voter apathy. With term limits in place, voters wouldn't have to do anything to remove an elected official; it would be automatic and the path of least resistance.

The average turnout for a presidential election is just over 50%; for mid-term congressional elections it's around 35%; and way lower than that for local elections. Given these numbers, we don't want to do anything to encourage voters to stay home during elections.

Governments based on democratic principles, such as ours, work best when voters are actively engaged. Anything that discourages voter participation, like I think term limits do, diminishes our government's effectiveness. Furthermore, our most precious and sacred treasure is freedom; particularly, the freedom to choose who among us will govern us. To allow government to dictate when the term of our elected representatives ends is, in essence, surrendering a big part of our freedom of self-determination. Surrendering any part of our freedom should not be done lightly, and certainly not for convenience. Doing so would weaken our foundation and increases our risk of falling prey to the danger feared most by our founding fathers: tyranny.

Given the path we're on toward a more socialist economy and the willingness of the majority of our citizens to give government more control over us, I fear that voters will soon give away our freedom for self-determination. I urge every voter to think hard about the consequence of