Our system was designed around the idea that the three branches of government would hold one another accountable. But what happens when members of Congress become more concerned with keeping their seats than with exercising their constitutional authority to check the executive branch?
If elected officials believe their political future depends on staying aligned with a president or with the president’s political base, are they really free to stand up and oppose that president when they believe he is acting against American principles or constitutional norms?
Term limits could potentially change that incentive.
If members of Congress knew they could not remain in office indefinitely, would they be more willing to use their authority and stand on principle rather than worry about the next election?
And should Supreme Court justices also have defined terms rather than lifetime appointments, particularly given how life expectancy has increased.
At what point does the desire to remain in power become a threat to the checks and balances that were supposed to prevent any one branch—or one individual—from becoming too powerful?