Of all Sen. Ted Cruz’s proposals, the Texas Republican’s proposed constitutional amendment on term limits is among the strangest. Under his plan, voters would no longer be allowed to elect U.S. senators to more than two terms, and Americans would also be prevented from electing U.S. House members to more than three terms.
That’s problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the inconvenient fact that Cruz is currently seeking a third term.
The senator’s argument, in effect, is that the Constitution should be changed in order to prevent people from re-electing people like Cruz.
I’ve been eager to hear the Texan defend such a proposal, and thankfully, CBS News’ Margaret Brennan posed the right question during yesterday’s episode of “Face the Nation,” asking Cruz why he isn’t holding himself to his own standard. He replied:
“Well, listen, I’m a passionate defender of term limits. I think that Congress would work much better if every senator were limited to two terms [and] if every House member were limited to three terms. I have introduced a constitutional amendment to put that into the Constitution.”
Oh. So to hear Cruz tell it, we’d all be better off — and Congress would be a more effective institution — if senators were sent home after no more than 12 years.
Cruz is also simultaneously asking Texans to give him a 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th year.
Reminded of this nagging detail, the senator added that he’d “happily comply” with his own proposed constitutional amendment “if and when it passes.” Cruz concluded, “I have never said I’m going to unilaterally comply.”
In other words, it doesn’t matter if, to borrow the GOP lawmaker’s phrasing, Congress “would work much better if every senator were limited to two terms.” What matters more is Cruz’s desire to hold onto power — and his constituents’ willingness to provide him with that power.
He’s “a passionate defender of term…
Read the full article here
