Pardon my perspicuity, but I simply cannot support the proposed constitutional amendment which would limit the number of terms members of Congress can serve.

Why? The biggest reason is because I DO support our representative form of government, and I feel strongly that this amendment undermines the very core of that system.

The idea behind a representative form of government is to have elected officials from different areas of the country, with different ideas, different philosophies, and different backgrounds, come together to collectively reach decisions that are in everyone's interests.

In diversity there is strength.

The way our current system works, I have no say in who gets elected to the senate from Virginia, and no one registered to vote in Utah can vote for who Maine sends to Congress from the 2nd District, where I live. And that's fine with me.

As I see it, this national term limits proposal is a blatant attempt to undermine that system, by so-called ``reformers'' who want to step beyond the reach of their own vote and put other people's senators or house members out to pasture.

``Throw the bums out,'' they say, ``all of them, because after 6 or 12 years of public service, all of them are bums.''

I'm sorry, but I can't go along with that.

I'm also worried that the whole concept of term limits is based on the belief that knowledge and experience are bad things to have.

I grew up in a generation which proclaimed its distrust of anyone over 30. Even though I was under 30 when that phrase was popular, I cringed at the naivete of that thinking. And I cringe at the similar cry today about anyone serving more than six years in Congress or 12 years in the Senate.

In a world getting more complicated every day, and where education and knowledge are considered the keys to not only success, but to mere survival, why would we want to deliberately dumb down Congress?

I understand that some people like the energy of new blood. Obviously, as a non-incumbent running for office, I would like to be some of that new blood myself.

I was new blood many years ago when I was a cub reporter at the Bangor Daily News. But part of what I learned, way back when, was that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and that it was sometimes handy to have some old pros around to keep me from putting my foot in my mouth – or into a fresh pile of something very smelly.

I believe it is best for any organization to have a healthy mix of fresh, unbridled enthusiasm AND institutional memory.

And what exactly is it that term limits people think happens in a half-dozen or dozen years which suddenly – or even gradually – turns sane congressmen into toxic waste?

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the frustration of voters over the apparent abuse of power wielded by some in Congress, particularly committee chairs. But we can and are rotating committee chairs now, and I don't see that old-timers have a patent on persnicketyness. The 73 freshmen Republicans in the Class of 1994 have abused their collective clout as much as the Dan Rostenkowskis or Bob Packwoods of the world.

Yes, there are problems – such as the huge sums of money used to manipulate voters during election campaigns, the influence of special interests and lobbyists, and inappropriate corporate connections. But the proposed term limits amendment won't solve any of those problems, and it would be a mistake to think it would. It's not that we can't get there from here. It's more like, the way to get where we want to go isn't on this particular map.

To sum up, this proposed constitutional amendment has three major problems: It is contrary to the concept of a representative government, it would severely restrict the experience we need in today's complicated world, and it simply would not solve the problems it is supposed to address.

The way I look at it, that makes three good reasons for any of us to be peripatetically opposed to the proposition – wouldn't you say?