ACE

Tag: knowledge

  • Pros and Cons of Congressional Term Limits

    Pros and Cons of Congressional Term Limits

    Background: What are Congressional Term Limits?

    While members of the U.S. House of Representatives serve two-year terms and U.S. Senators serve six-year terms, all Congresspeople are eligible for re-election indefinitely. As of 2023, U.S. Representatives served an average term of 8.5 years, while U.S. Senators served an average term of 11.2 years. 

    Congressional term limits are a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the number of terms a member of Congress can legally serve. Under Article V, the Constitution can be amended by either (1) a two-thirds vote of support in both chambers of Congress, or (2) a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of all states and ratified by three-fourths of all states. Term limits reached their highest level of political salience in the 1990s. In 1992, Arkansas voters attempted to impose term limits on their state’s federal congresspeople via an amendment to their state constitution. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Supreme Court decided that this amendment was unconstitutional and that states cannot impose term limits on their own federal delegation; the only way to impose congressional term limits is to amend the U.S. Constitution. 

    Current Attempts to Impose Congressional Term Limits

    In 2024, Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC) introduced a joint resolution to amend the Constitution and enact a three-term limit for Representatives and a two-term limit for Senators. The resolution died in committee. In January 2025, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Katie Britt (R-AL) introduced a resolution with the same provisions. Their proposed amendment was co-sponsored by 17 senators, all of whom are Republicans. 

    While the constitution has never been amended through a constitutional convention, some states are also taking that approach to impose congressional term limits due to limited success of prior joint resolutions in Congress. Indiana’s State Senate recently voted to approve a resolution calling for a convention to consider term limits. If the Indiana House passes the resolution, Indiana will become the tenth state to call for a constitutional convention, joining Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

    Arguments In Favor of Congressional Term Limits

    The case for congressional term limits centers on the following arguments: (1) Term limits motivate politicians to get more done while in office, (2) Congressional turnover eliminates the incumbent funding advantage, (3) Term limits reduce careerism in politics, and (4) Congressional term limits have widespread support.

    One common argument in favor of congressional term limits is that the policy will incentivize politicians to act more efficiently and effectively during their term given the knowledge that they cannot serve indefinitely. Some argue that today, legislators avoid taking immediate action on hot-button issues like immigration and healthcare because they know those issues drive voters to the polls. These proponents argue that congressional term limits would help shift lawmakers’ core objective from winning re-election to creating effective, long-term policy solutions. 

    Advocates for congressional term limits also express concern that members of Congress are unrepresentative of their constituents, especially in terms of economic status. They highlight that funding has become a barrier to becoming an elected official and that incumbency is often linked with disproportionately high campaign funds, making it difficult for newcomer candidates to win against an incumbent. Proponents of term limits say the policy would reduce this incumbent advantage, leveling the funding playing field every two or three terms so that candidates have more of an equal financial footing heading into their race. Supporters also suggest that term limits could indirectly decrease the role of corporate funders in politics by deterring companies from making major investments in lawmakers who will only hold power for a short period. 

    Other proponents of congressional term limits argue that the policy would limit careerism in Congress by making room for people with more real-world expertise to service. They highlight that the average duration of time served in Congress has been steadily increasing from 8.9 years to 11 years, arguing this demonstrates that congressional office is viewed as a career plan instead of a post of service. In the absence of indefinite congressional roles, proponents argue, everyday Americans with more recent connections to the job market would have more opportunities than career politicians who are “insulated from the communities they represent.”

    Finally, proponents of congressional term limits highlight that the majority of Americans support the policy. A 2023 Pew Research Center study found that 87% of respondents favored limiting the number of terms one person can serve in congress. A different 2023 study from the Maryland School of Public Policy found support for congressional term limits transcended political party, with 86% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 84% of Independents in favor of the policy.

    Arguments Against Congressional Term Limits

    The arguments against congressional term limits are primarily built around the three subarguments: (1) Term limits fail to address political corruption, (2) Term limits ignore the value of the incumbency and institutional knowledge, and (3) Frequent congressional turnover shifts power away from the legislative branch. 

    Some opponents argue that congressional term limits fail to curtail political corruption, and may even worsen the problem. They hold that imposing term limits will cause lawmakers to work more closely with lobbyists for two reasons. First, given that term limits will cause a sharp increase in the number of “freshmen” lawmakers with limited legislative experience, critics argue that more politicians will rely more closely on lobbyists and special interest groups to write or recommend laws to “fill [lawmakers’] own informational and policy gaps.” Second, critics warn that term limits will only exacerbate the “revolving door” phenomenon in which retired legislators seek to maintain political influence by securing careers as lobbyists or private sector government affairs consultants. They cite a 2023 study that found that state governments with term limits saw an increase in the frequency of political corruption events. The study observed a “penultimate effect”, where state legislators under a term limitation devoted more of their last term to securing their personal power than to passing policy. Given that the frequency of last terms will increase significantly under term limit policy, opponents worry about an accompanying increase in political corruption. 

    Opponents of term limits also argue that the values of political incumbency in the legislative process are taken for granted. They argue that policymaking is a specialized skill that must be developed over time, highlighting examples of how bills with loopholes and contradictions – the result of unskilled policymaking – harm the American public. They hold that incumbency’s value is its ability to maintain legislative efficiency and institutional knowledge. Given that federal policymaking is a skill that can only be learned on-the-job, critics say incumbency gives lawmakers the opportunity to become the specialized professionals their constituents deserve. They also argue that bipartisan partnerships among lawmakers take years to cultivate, and that term limits would hinder cross-party collaboration. 

    The third core criticism of term limits is that the policy would shift power to the executive and the private sector at the detriment of democracy. As lawmakers are denied longer tenures, opponents argue, lobbyists and staffers become the primary voice of experience in the legislature. Additionally, critics suggest that a decrease in experienced legislators with cross-aisle relationships will further hinder Congress’ ability to efficiently pass legislation, catalyzing an increase in executive orders and other executive branch actions. This will create hurdles to the traditional system of checks and balances. 

    Conclusion 

    The debate over congressional term limits is longstanding and complex. While proponents argue that the policy will increase legislative efficacy, decrease corruption, and represent the will of the people, critics worry that it could have a counteractive effect. As the debate continues, countless questions linger. How much do we value incumbency? How are money and careerism intertwined? Is the legislature representative enough? Is legislative efficiency worth risking? After all of those questions have been asked, there is only one question left: Should Americans be for or against congressional term limits?

  • Tulsi Gabbard Confirmed as Director of National Intelligence: Can She Keep America Safe?

    Tulsi Gabbard Confirmed as Director of National Intelligence: Can She Keep America Safe?

    In another significant development in Washington, Tulsi Gabbard—once a Democratic congresswoman, later an outspoken critic of her party, and now a key ally of President Donald Trump—has been confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

    Gabbard’s political journey has been anything but conventional. Born in American Samoa and raised in Hawaii, she became the youngest person elected to the Hawaii state legislature at 21. After serving in the Hawaii National Guard and deploying to Iraq, she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2012, becoming the first American Samoan and Hindu member of Congress.

    Her tenure in Congress was marked by independent positions on foreign policy, including a 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which drew bipartisan criticism. In 2022, she announced her departure from the Democratic Party, claiming it was under the control of an “elitist cabal of warmongers.” 

    A Contentious Confirmation Process

    During her confirmation hearings, Gabbard faced intense scrutiny over her past statements and actions. Senators questioned her previous defense of Edward Snowden, whom she had once called a “brave whistleblower.” When pressed to label Snowden a traitor, she responded: “Edward Snowden broke the law.” 

    Snowden, a former NSA contractor, leaked classified information in 2013 about the U.S. government’s mass surveillance programs, including the bulk collection of American phone records under the Patriot Act. His revelations exposed the extent of the NSA’s global surveillance operations and sparked a worldwide debate on privacy, national security, and government overreach. While some view Snowden as a whistleblower who revealed unconstitutional surveillance, others, including U.S. officials, see him as a criminal who endangered national security.

    Gabbard had previously argued that Snowden deserved a fair trial rather than immediate prosecution under the Espionage Act, which does not allow whistleblowers to defend their actions in court. However, her confirmation hearing remarks signaled a shift, suggesting she would take a harder stance on intelligence leaks now that she leads the nation’s intelligence apparatus.

    Reversal on Surveillance Policies

    During her confirmation hearings, Tulsi Gabbard faced intense scrutiny over her past statements and actions. Senators questioned her previous defense of Edward Snowden, whom she had once praised for exposing illegal government activities. When pressed to label Snowden a traitor, she acknowledged that he broke the law but refrained from using the term “traitor.” 

    Regarding government surveillance, Gabbard had been a vocal critic of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), expressing concerns that citizens’ communications could be incidentally collected when targeting foreign nationals. 

    However, during the hearings, she indicated a shift in her stance, suggesting that with appropriate reforms, Section 702 could be a valuable tool for national security. This change led some Democrats to accuse her of political opportunism, while Republicans viewed it as a necessary evolution given her prospective role.

    Despite strong Democratic opposition, Gabbard’s nomination was confirmed by the Senate with a vote largely along party lines. 

    As Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard now oversees all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and FBI. Her appointment raises pressing questions about the future of U.S. intelligence policy. Will she uphold her past calls for transparency and civil liberties protections, or will she adopt a more traditional intelligence posture now that she’s at the helm?

    With rising global threats, cybersecurity challenges, and intense domestic political divisions, Tulsi Gabbard faces an uphill battle. The question is no longer whether she could get here. It’s whether she can succeed.

  • Trump’s Tariffs: Key Updates and Ongoing Debate

    Trump’s Tariffs: Key Updates and Ongoing Debate

    One of President Trump’s myriad “first-day” promises, the plan to leverage tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China drew attention on the campaign trail. Two weeks into his second term, the campaign promise came to fruition via three consecutive executive orders, sparking economic debate and what some are calling a trade war with neighboring countries. 

    The Executive Orders

    On February first, the White House released an emergency memo announcing new tariffs as a means to combat “the extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs”. The declaration alluded to executive orders from the same day which invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China. Collectively, these orders levied 25% tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on all goods from China. The first order carves out a smaller 10% tariff on energy resources imported from Canada to limit domestic energy shortages.

    Diplomatic Standoff and Temporary Delay

    Just before the tariffs were set to take effect, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau negotiated a 30-day delay, agreeing to several conditions. The 30-day window sets a tight deadline for implementing the following measures, with the potential for future U.S. tariffs lingering in the case of failed implementation:

    Canada:

    • Appointing a Fentanyl Czar: Canada will designate a high-level official responsible for coordinating efforts to combat fentanyl production and distribution.
    • Designation of Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations: This move aims to enhance legal frameworks for tackling organized crime.
    • Intelligence Sharing and Funding: Canada will implement an intelligence directive targeting fentanyl and organized crime, supported by substantial funding.
    • Border Security Enhancements: Canada has pledged to bolster its border security measures to prevent illegal crossings and drug smuggling.

    Mexico:

    • Deployment of National Guard: Mexico will send 10,000 National Guard troops to its northern border to prevent drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
    • Cooperation on Weapons Trafficking: Mexico will work jointly with the U.S. to curb the trafficking of weapons into Mexico.

    China did not negotiate a delay, and instead retaliated immediately with its own tariffs on American energy and agricultural imports. China also filed an official dispute in the World Trade Organization.

    During negotiations for the 30-day-delay, Canada also retaliated with its own tariffs on U.S. goods. On February 4th, Prime Minister Trudeau implemented a CA$155 billion tariff package that will impact myriad products including steel and plastic, household appliances, and coffee. Mexico has not yet proposed retaliatory tariffs. 

    Prospective Impacts

    The Trump administration’s use of tariffs is not new; in his first term, President Trump levied considerable tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, impacting China, India, the European Union, and other trade partners. However, President Trump’s recent executive orders have drawn increased attention for their novel scope. This is the first time in American history that a sitting President has invoked IEEPA to leverage tariffs, bypassing the formal investigation process required under other tariff-related laws like Section 232. Supporters emphasize that the use of IEEPA allows President Trump to act more efficiently in light of the pressing opioid crisis, while critics warn that using IEEPA to implement tariffs risks unchecked executive authority. 

    Economically, some experts warn that this round of tariffs could raise consumer prices significantly more than the tariffs from the last Trump administration due to their expanded scope, targeting of consumer goods, and ongoing inflation. A report from the Tax Foundation estimates that tariffs will function as a hidden tax, potentially costing households hundreds of dollars annually. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the tariffs “the beginning of a golden age of higher costs for American families”, warning that they would strain relations with allies and worsen supply chain issues. On the other hand, some argue that Trump’s tariff strategy has already succeeded in forcing Canada and Mexico to the negotiating table, leading to unprecedented commitments to address border security and the drug trade. They emphasize that the proposed tariffs were a strategic move to force cooperation from neighboring countries on pressing issues, despite the short-term economic cost. 

    Will the Tariffs Actually Be Imposed?

    While the 30-day delay provides an opportunity for Canada and Mexico to fulfill their commitments, President Trump has stated that he fully intends to impose tariffs if they fail to act decisively. Moreover, on February 13th, President Trump signed a memo calling for research on retaliatory tariffs, signaling that the White House is preparing to impose additional tariffs on nations like Canada and China that initially retaliated with tariffs of their own.

  • Understanding the Accountability for Overprescription Debate

    Understanding the Accountability for Overprescription Debate

    Background: The Opioid Epidemic

    Over the past two decades, the opioid epidemic has emerged as a key public health issue in the United States. The first wave of the epidemic was characterized by an increase in opioid prescriptions in the late 1990s paired with marketing from pharmaceutical companies that ensured that opioids were safe for pain management. In the early 2010s, a second wave arose when individuals who had become dependent on opioids sought out heroin as a cheaper and more accessible alternative for pain management. The third wave, starting in the mid-2010s, saw a rise of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl in illegal drug markets, leading to unprecedented levels of overdoses. 

    Prescription opioids are chemicals, both natural and synthetic, that are prescribed for pain management and include commonly-prescribed drugs such as Hydrocodone (Vicodin),  Oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percocet), and Morphine (Kadian). While prescription drugs are used to treat acute to chronic pain related to surgery, injury, or illness, prescription can come with risks. Side effects of commonly-prescribed opioids include increased sensitivity to pain, increased drug tolerance, and withdrawal post-medication. These side effects can lead the way to opioid misuse and addiction. In 2023, 125 million opioid prescriptions were filled in America, and 8.6 million Americans misused prescription opioids.

    Calls for Accountability

    In recent years, blame for the opioid epidemic has shifted towards pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs and initially advertised their safety. Specifically, many consumers seek to hold pharmaceutical companies legally accountable using the argument that their deceptive marketing tactics have created a public health crisis and therefore constitute a public nuisance. Between 2014 and 2021, more than 3,000 lawsuits were raised against pharmaceutical corporations based on the public nuisance argument. However, 2021 decisions from California and Oklahoma State Supreme Courts held that false advertising was not enough to constitute a public nuisance, weakening the prospects of accountability arguments in other pending cases. 

    Most recently, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma – a major pharmaceutical company – that would have facilitated an $8 billion settlement to the individuals, states, and local governments that had sued the company over opioid-related deaths. While some praised the Court for its refusal to grant Purdue Pharma the bankruptcy relief it desired, others say the Court failed to hold the company accountable by jeopardizing the $8 billion settlement to victims. Today, avenues for holding major pharmaceutical corporations – collectively referred to as Big Pharma –  accountable are highly debated. 

    The Case for Holding Big Pharma Legally Accountable

    Supporters of holding pharmaceutical companies legally accountable for the opioid epidemic cite the companies’ use of deceptive marketing techniques to sell opioids. For example, Purdue Pharma’s Evolve 2 Excellence initiative aimed to increase the sale of OxyContin by instructing their marketing team to promote higher dosages and target high volume opioid prescribers. In 2003, Purdue Pharma launched a misleading marketing campaign about the effectiveness of their prescription drugs despite a lack of proven efficacy in treating pain. In 2014, the city of Chicago sued Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Cephalon, Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Solutions, and Actavis for “knowingly and aggressively marketing [opioids] as rarely addictive” and contributing to several Chicagoan overdose deaths. 

    Proponents of legal accountability for Big Pharma believe that successful lawsuits against major pharmaceutical companies could set important precedents and ensure that other corporations are held accountable for their public health impacts on the US population. When polled, 57% of Americans believed that pharmaceutical companies should be held legally and financially accountable for the worsening opioid crisis. This belief existed across party and ideological lines. An even larger segment of the U.S. population supports compelling Big Pharma to remedy their contributions to the epidemic in other ways, with 73% stating that they want drug companies to fund opioid addiction treatment and 72% arguing that they should distribute naloxone kits for free. 

    Arguments Against Legal Accountability for Big Pharma

    Critics of legal accountability for pharmaceutical corporations argue that lawsuits are temporary solutions that will not deter pharmaceutical companies from producing and marketing harmful drugs in the long term. They hold that given the massive annual profits of the top five pharmaceutical companies, civil suits act as no more than a slap on the. Critics also emphasize the increasing difficulty of using the public nuisance argument against Big Pharma due to the complexities of state and federal oversight.

    Additionally, some opponents of legal accountability for Big Pharma argue that highly-publicized lawsuits only provide a false sense of closure and ignore other factors that underlie the opioid crisis. Critics believe there are multiple causes of the opioid epidemic such as housing and food insecurity, and thus argue that the social determinants of health framework must be adopted in order to best tackle the crisis. Mimi Walters, former United States Representative, discussed how prioritizing settlements with pharmaceutical companies is illogical if people are not simultaneously addressing unfair federal housing programs that create barriers to housing for those who have substance use disorders. Citing lack of economic opportunity, limited drug treatment, and need for pain management as causes of opioid overuse, some believe taking a holistic approach is the only way to manage the opioid crisis from the grassroots. They contend that legal settlements are simply a bandaid solution.

    Moreover, some argue that overprescribing doctors hold just as much responsibility for the opioid epidemic as the corporations that market the drugs. Patient satisfaction and expectations for pain-free experiences have become central to the healthcare industry, leading some doctors to prescribe strong opioids for slight injury rather than saving them for persistent, chronic pain. Critics believe that this push for patient satisfaction, along with a focus on the monetary value of patients, creates a cycle in which physicians prescribe to make money. Opponents also cite the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) lack of regulation as a contributing factor. In 2017, the Presidential Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis found that the epidemic was partially caused by gaps in FDA oversight. In 2002, 8 out of 10 members of an FDA advisory committee on opioid prescription had ties to Big Pharma. The committee advised the FDA against regulating overprescription, causing many to argue that accountability efforts should include government agencies and not just corporations.

    Conclusion

    Efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies legally accountable have gained traction in recent years. In 2023, Michigan became the last state in the nation to repeal its legal immunity for pharmaceutical companies. In October 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice brought charges against several pharmaceutical companies and brokers for their role in the unlawful distribution of nearly 70 million opioid pills. While many applaud these efforts, some see them as short-term solutions and argue they must be part of a larger comprehensive approach to address the far-reaching consequences of the opioid epidemic in the years to come.