I just received an email from a supporter championing the "Congressional Reform Act of 2010." The "Act" limits Congressmen to a fixed number of terms, stating:
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
I oppose term limits.
The author of this "Act" does not understand the concept of "citizen legislatures." The idea does not mean serve ONE term and go home, and never return to Washington. It means government is so small that the business of the legislature is accomplished in a few days or weeks, and then all the citizen-legislators return home to their farms and businesses, which is their real livelihood, for the rest of the year.
Obviously it's been a long time since we've had constitutionally-sized government. It will be a long time before we return to constitutionally-sized government. If we kick out all the Ron Pauls and replace them with inexperienced Constitutionalists, they will not be as effective in battling career bureaucrats as a career Constitutionalist like Ron Paul would.
The proper goal is not rotating inexperienced legislators, but shrinking down the size of government until career legislators [those who do not have any business at home, but whose only business is as a politician] are no longer needed.
If Thomas Jefferson were running today on a platform of opposing the growing socialism in Washington, I would vote for him term after term after term, knowing that he will be outnumbered in Congress, and that it will take a couple of generations to undue what has been done over the last 100 or more years.
If voters send me to Congress to root out unconstitutional bureaucracies, I would not be able to accomplish this task in six years. I woudn't want to be term-limited. I would hope voters would continually re-elect me, term after term after term, until so much of the federal government has been abolished that Congress only need meet in session for a few weeks a year.