ACE

Tag: politics

  • 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?

  • Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Introduction and History 

    The Alien Enemies Act (AEA), enacted in 1798 as a part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, grants the President the authority to detain, apprehend, and deport noncitizens from nations deemed hostile during times of declared war or invasion. While war can only be declared by Congress, some believe a rhetorical reading of “invasion” leaves a legal gray area for the executive branch to invoke the AEA in the absence of a physical invasion or declaration of war. The law gives the executive branch power to manage national security concerns via the detention and deportation of foreign nationals without judicial oversight. 

    The AEA passed during a period of heightened tensions between the United States and France, with the United States facing threats of foreign influence, espionage, and internal dissent. It has been invoked three times throughout U.S. history: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The AEA is most notorious for its role in creating Japanese internment camps after the Pearl Harbor bombing of 1941. 

    The broader Alien and Sedition Acts received criticism for suppressing political opposition, particularly against immigrants from nations deemed hostile. While most of the Alien and Sedition Acts were either repealed or left to expire under President Thomas Roosevelt, the AEA remained in place and was expanded in 1918 to include women. While the AEA itself has been invoked sparingly by U.S. presidents, its broad language has left room for interpretation and debate today. 

    Recent Developments

    During his 2024 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump pledged to invoke the AEA as part of Operation Aurora, an initiative aimed at addressing immigration issues and criminal networks. In line with this plan, President Trump released executive orders that categorized immigration as an “invasion” and designated certain drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Some legal scholars believe that by classifying these cartels as state actors, the Trump administration is seeking to create legal justification for future use of the AEA to deport individuals from Mexico and other regions deemed hostile to national security.

    In response to concerns over potential executive abuse of the AEA, Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) introduced the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, a legislative effort to repeal the Act entirely. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Alien Enemies Act

    Supporters argue that the AEA is a vital tool for safeguarding national security, particularly during times of war or crisis. By allowing for the swift removal of individuals from hostile nations, the Act is seen as a preventive measure against espionage, sabotage, or other threats. Some proponents also contend that mass migration could provide cover for criminals, terrorists, or spies seeking to infiltrate the United States, making strict enforcement of the AEA a necessity. 

    Proponents also highlight the potential use of the AEA in dismantling transnational criminal organizations operating within American borders. Targeting noncitizens involved in illicit activities, including drug trafficking and organized crime, is seen as a means of enhancing public safety. Some argue that strict enforcement of the Act can serve as a deterrent against illegal immigration and unauthorized criminal activity. 

    From a policy standpoint, strong border control measures are often considered essential to maintaining national sovereignty. Advocates for the AEA argue that it falls within the President’s constitutional duty to protect the United States from foreign threats, and contend that the political question doctrine prohibits courts from intervening if the President decides to invoke it. They also assert that transnational criminal organizations meet criteria for the constitutional definition of “invasion”, justifying an invocation of the AEA in modern times. The AEA’s potential to bypass local sanctuary city policies, which may limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, is another reason some advocate for the Act’s use today. 

    Arguments Against the Alien Enemies Act

    Critics argue that AEA violates several fundamental rights, particularly the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the right to be free from indefinite civil detention. They point to the AEA’s ability to bypass standard immigration court proceedings and deport individuals without hearings, arguing that the absence of judicial review leaves affected individuals with limited legal recourse. Experts note that this lack of judicial oversight could allow for large-scale detentions and deportations, opening the door to wrongful detentions nationwide. They argue that the lack of due process puts noncitizens and lawful immigrants at risk of being wrongfully detained or deported without the opportunity to defend themselves in court. 

    Another primary concern surrounding the AEA is the potential for discriminatory enforcement based on nationality. The Act applies not only to citizens of a hostile nation but to “natives” of a hostile nation, which includes those who were born in a hostile nation but have since renounced their citizenship from that state. In this way, the AEA explicitly allows discrimination based on ancestry. Given that past uses of the AEA led to the surveillance, kidnapping, and indefinite detention of residents based on their nationality, critics fear that invoking the AEA today would replicate the human rights abuses of the Japanese internment era and lead to widespread racial profiling. 

    Some legal scholars also criticize the Act’s broad allowance for executive action and vague definitions of security threats such as “invasion” and “predatory incursion”. They warn that these broad terms leave room for an administration to target civilians in times of peace. They highlight the Supreme Court’s 1948 Ludecke v. Watkins decision – which upheld President Truman’s use of the AEA for six years after the end of World War II – as a dangerous precedent that might allow future administrations to use wartime powers to attack civilians during peacetime if the AEA is not repealed. 

    Beyond legal and ethical concerns, critics emphasize that mass deportations under the AEA could have significant economic implications. Many industries, particularly those reliant on immigration labor, could face workforce shortages and disruptions. The potential loss of workers in agriculture, construction, and service industries could negatively affect local and national economies. Some economists warn that a mass deportation strategy could lead to increased costs for consumers, reduced productivity, and job losses for American citizens who labor alongside immigrant workers. 

    The Alien Enemies Act’s Future Prospects

    Applying the AEA in modern contexts is likely to face legal challenges. Courts may be called upon to determine whether broad applications of the act align with constitutional protections and international human rights obligations. Given the potential for legal disputes, any large-scale innovation of the AEA would likely be subject to judicial review. Legal scholars suggest that any attempt to broadly apply the AEA, such as categorizing all foreign-based cartels as state actors, may struggle to hold up in court.

    If the Trump administration or future administrations seek to implement the AEA extensively, congressional efforts to alter the Act’s provisions may also gain traction. The Neighbors Not Enemies Act represents one such effort to repeal the AEA outright. Alternatively, some lawmakers may push for reforms that introduce judicial oversight or limit the scope of the Act under modern legal standards. 

    Numerous civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations have signaled their intent to challenge any broad use of the AEA. These groups may use litigation, public awareness campaigns, and lobbying efforts to limit the Act’s application or push for its repeal in the future. Public perception and media coverage will likely shape the discourse around the Act’s future. 

    Conclusion

    The Alien Enemies Act, rooted in the national security concerns of 1798, continues to be a subject of debate in contemporary American politics. While some view it as a necessary tool for maintaining national security, others argue that it risks civil rights violations, racial profiling, and economic harm. As political, legal, and legislative battles unfold, the future of the Act remains unknown. The resolution of this debate will shape the future trajectory of immigration law, civil liberties, and national security policy in the United States for years to come.