I have always held that there should be no term limits prescribed by law. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Term Limits that term limits are unconstitutional, ruling that a Constitutional amendment is required if term limits are to be implemented. I have consistently resisted arguments in favor of such an amendment.

I am a firm believer in the freedom of the people to choose their own representatives. It allows for the greatest possible participation of the citizens in our system of government. I don't want to give that up; it was obtained at great cost in blood and treasure. But this week I am rethinking my position. After hearing the arrogant, condescending attitudes and comments of member of Congress and the Senate, first on the immigration bill, and then on the attempted revival of the so-called "fairness doctrine," I think we need that amendment.

For my own peace, I needed to find a way to reconcile in my mind the right of the people to choose their representatives, and the right of the people to be honestly and truly represented. Here are my thoughts.

We don't have an absolute right to anything in our society. We don't get to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or engage in religious practices that cause harm to another person. That is part of the social compact we all tacitly agree to at every election. Therefore, we don't have an absolute right to choose whomsoever we wish to be our representatives. Even the Constitution put limits of age and residency on the people we send to Congress. Therefore, in keeping with that spirit, we can put limitations on the number of terms served by our Representatives and Senators.

The framers did not believe that anyone should spend a lifetime as a public servant. George Washington demonstrated his view on the subject by stepping down voluntarily after two terms as President. He could have been King of the Unites States, but instead he showed virtue and restraint.

Washington D.C. is now a very different place. The environment there is antithetical to virtue. Tom Delay, in his recent book, tells how that affects very many of those whom we send there. Immorality runs rampant; corruption and graft are the operative principles more often than not. Our public servants no longer deal in principled compromise. Instead they work corrupt back-room deals.

It has historically been up to the individual Representative or Senator to police his or her own actions. The presence of term limits were not there to tell them the time had come to step aside. An extended stay in the beltway environment today all but guarantees that they will not consider stepping down voluntarily. No, they must either be voted out or pushed out by scandal.

Therefore, in the interest of virtue, the People must now police the actions of their representatives. We must, for the good of our society, establish term limits to prevent the corruption of those whom we send to do our bidding.

And if the people find a good and able representative for the House or Senate, and don't wish them to leave their service? Keep in mind that we do not have unlimited rights, as I mentioned above. We don't have the right to keep anyone in office for an unlimited duration 1) because death takes us all at some point and, 2) leaving a good and able servant in that environment is certain to corrupt them given enough time. In Washington, Time equals Power. And more Time is more Power, and with more power comes the tendency to corruption. It is, therefore, in the public interest to curtail the amount of time our representatives are exposed to that tendency.

Perhaps, given enough time, Washington will revert to its former character and will be once again a safe place. Until that day, we need term limits. We need that amendment!