TERM LIMITS ARE NOT INTRINSICALLY BETTER

AN OPINION PIECE

Do not buy into the mistruth that Term Limits is "purer" or older or some such thing than No Term Limits.

The Term Limits question can be argued either way, depending on what sources you want to cite. For example, you can argue for Term Limits because in the US we now limit the President to two consecutive terms and further cite the fact that George Washington set the precedent for only two terms before it was amended constitutionally. But then one can argue back that there are no limits on US senators or representatives, and that Supreme Court justices serve for life.

Those who believe in Term Limits will then counter-argue that Term Limits is commonly applied elsewhere or that Term limits goes back further in history—conveniently going back in history to a time and place making their argument! Etc., etc.

All this misses the point: Neither Term Limits nor No Term Limits is INTRINSICALLY better than the other. Intelligent framers of a constitution—or rules whereby a society is run—seek the right balance in government. To do this they employ MANY VARIABLES. These include rights, duties and restrictions applying to officials; election vs. appointment to office; the number of officials in a given body such as the House or the Senate; length of a single term in office; and the application or non-application of Term Limits.

It's like a machine you tinker with to get working right. There is no right or wrong intrinsically to Term Limits. Here it may work well; there it does not.

The point for us in Century Village is simply to decide "Does Term Limits or No Term Limits work better for us?" We should also be asking: "IF Term Limits, which positions should this be applied to—all officers, some or none?"

Given CV's present set-up, I say "none" for the reasons many have given many times over. Some will disagree citing their reasons. That's okay. Let none of us say, however, that Term Limits or No Term Limits is better because it is the "original" and is thus "purer." This is a false argument. Both are just adjustments among other adjustments a society must make to their governing "machine" to get it working right.