With the shutdown ball squarely in the Senate’s court, a fair question feels timelier than ever: Is the United States Senate what our Founders envisioned it to be — or has it fallen short of their design?
The honest answer lies somewhere in the gray. At times, the Senate has lived up to the Founders’ expectations; at other times, not so much. And that inconsistency may be the clearest sign that the chamber no longer completely fulfills its original purpose.
From the beginning, America’s founders agreed on the need for two legislative chambers. The Great Compromise of 1787 created proportional representation by population in the House of Representatives and equal representation of states in the Senate — a vital balance between large and small states that made the Union possible.
James Madison, ever the constitutional craftsman and arguably a genius, explained it best:
“No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states.”
In short, legislation required both popular support (via the House) and state-by-state consent (via the Senate). The Senate was designed as a stabilizing force — a body representing state interests, offering experience, deliberation, and restraint against fleeting passions.
In Federalist No. 62, Madison argued that higher age and citizenship requirements, longer six-year terms, and staggered elections would provide “a due sense of national character” and guard against rash policymaking. Originally, senators were chosen by state legislatures to ensure capable leadership and preserve federalism.
That changed with the 17th Amendment, which introduced direct election of senators — a reform well-intentioned, but perhaps the first crack in the dam. The amendment democratized the process but removed the structural link between senators and state governments. Absent from that reform, however, was something many Americans now crave: term limits. Hindsight is 20/20, but the 17th was the best and most appropriate chance for the idea of terms limits as a necessary guardrail in ensuring the body’s purpose. Ironically, the amendment may have opened the door to careerism.
Reformers sought to curb corruption in state legislatures by giving voters direct control, but they overlooked something timeless — the human appetite for power and prestige. Term limits could have checked those ambitions. Two terms and out might be the sweet spot. Maybe one or maybe three. Debate the details if you like, but few can argue against the principle that no officeholder should linger indefinitely. The pro / con doesn’t yield a positive tally.
Columnist George Will has long argued that the Senate’s problem stems from misplaced ambition. He has suggested barring senators from seeking the presidency, reasoning that too many treat the Senate as a launching pad, not a destination.
The numbers back him up: 60 senators have run for president, but only three have ever made it to the Oval Office. Governors, by contrast, have fared far better — more than 50 have run, and 15 to 16 have become president, depending on how you count Teddy Roosevelt.
One would think ambitious senators might see this trend, but it doesn’t appear so. Too many believe they can do what Barack Obama did.
Would term limits or a ban on presidential bids for senators make the chamber stronger, more focused, and truer to its founding design? Yes.
The bigger question is: Would lawmakers ever support such limits on themselves? Probably not.
And if you can figure out how to convince them otherwise, you’re smarter than me.