Have you heard about the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution yet? If not, I’m sure Reps. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, and Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., will be very happy to fill you in.

It seems that these poor, wretched souls spend nearly all of their elected time in office raising monies and campaigning for the next general election (every two years for the House of Representatives). They really don’t think that’s fair at all.

“James Madison and the other writers of the Constitution would be appalled if they knew we never shut down our campaigns,” quips Bartlett.

Indeed.

So, what’s the solution? Why, amend the Constitution to allow Representatives to serve longer terms. It would work like this. At the beginning of the decade, when an election coincides with the National Census, Representatives would be elected to a two year term of office. The next two terms would be four-year terms.

Representative Stenholm chimes in on the proposal:

“I thought the forefathers were pretty smart in holding representatives accountable through two-year terms. Then I gradually watched the tremendous change in our political process, and the amount of money getting involved.”

Stenholm has been “representing” the people of his state since 1978. This smacks of nothing more than another career politician making an overt power grab to the detriment of our once beloved Republic.

The House of Representatives was designed to be a large, rotating body of individuals for a simple reason, to avoid Demagoguery and to discourage any one powerful group or groups to hold sway over the rest of the assembled delegates. A term of two years is just about enough time to get in there, represent your constituents and when your term of office is over, return home to live among the citizenry once again.

Indeed, that is the very essence of representation. Citizen legislators, who live and work with their neighbors, travel to Washington to ensure the people they represent are heard. The idea is to then return to the fold, as is where, and continue a productive life.

The question is, can a “Representative” like Charles Stenholm, who has served in office for 25 years, really represent his constitutes? Has he held any other jobs those long 25 years? If not, how does he know what it is like running a business, or a farm, or a household for that matter?

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time for “honorable men” such as Stenholm and Bartlett to seek out honest work. The answer is simple, and was once much in favor. Term limits.

Imagine, for a moment, if individuals in the House of Representatives were only allowed to serve not more than 3 consecutive terms of office (for a total of 6 years), and Senators were limited to two terms (for a total of 12 years). What could the possible benefits be? Well, no more worrying about re-elections and all the baggage that comes along with it. Representatives would be able to spend more time worrying about their constituents than their legacy.

Term limits are certainly not a new idea. In fact, many people don’t realize that the executive branch is restricted to two terms of office by the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution. People got a little jumpy when Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted (and succeeded) at several end runs around the Constitution and used his status as a war time President to get elected an unprecedented 4 terms. Luckily, natural term limits eventually took its course as Roosevelt died going into his 13th year in office.

I know the stock answers to this argument. I know people say it is an assault upon the foundations of democracy to dictate to the masses just how long they can elect an individual to office. The answer is simple. Thankfully, the quagmire of democracy was never intended for us. Ask a founding father what they thought of the concept of democracy and I’m sure you would have received an earful.

Our founders understood that a rigid system of both checks and balances and a certain distance from mob mentality was the best way to make this country grow. The House of Representatives would be the voice of the People. Individuals elected to this office would most certainly be a first among equals, someone well respected, who had a good head for business, or farming, and most of all, a strong education in the subject of liberty.

The Senate was to be elected by the State Legislators as a check against the House of Representatives. This would be a body of individuals partially removed from the popular vote, and more inclined to act in the interest of their state than smaller groups of individuals.

Put this together with the Executive branch, elected by Electoral College, and the Judiciary, mainly appointments and you have a nice set of checks and balances

These systems of Checks and Balances have already been struck a terrible blow by the passage of the 17th Amendment, relinquishing the election of Senators to the will of the popular vote. Now Reps. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, and Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md want to strike another blow.

I say, send these cretins packing