Tired of hearing that term limits will fix Washington? We take a hard look at the logic behind capping years in office and explain why the move can backfire. With constitutional law scholar Joe Wolverton, we trace the real source of entrenched power to voter incentives, not a missing clause, and explore how frequent elections already function as the framers’ built-in check. Along the way, we unpack the risks of a Convention of States, from illusory promises to the danger of rewriting more than anyone bargained for.

Hamilton’s Federalist No. 72 takes center stage as we examine how forced exits can drain motivation for good governance, creating lame ducks who feel less accountable to the people they serve. We walk through real-world incentives: incumbents enjoy free media and district benefits, challengers must buy attention, and constituents often reward short-term spoils over long-term restraint. Swap names under a term cap and the same priorities often persist, just with fresher faces and shorter horizons.

This conversation leans into first principles. A republic relies on voter choice; removing candidates by law narrows that choice and can sideline rare voices who fight surveillance creep, endless war, or runaway spending. Structural tweaks cannot replace the work of civic renewal. If we change what we demand from representatives, ballots become the most powerful term limit on offer.

We close with a teaser for next week’s topic: the authority of states to push back on federal overreach. Want a head start? Head to jbs.org/states for videos, tools, and background on federalism and state power. If this perspective challenged you, share it with a friend, subscribe for the follow-up on nullification, and leave a review to tell us where you stand.

https://www.jacksonfamilyministry.com

https://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/