Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays about term limits in congress
Essays about term limits in congress
Essays about term limits in congress
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays about term limits in congress
Legislative service, playing politics, being a professional congressman, when did political office become a full time job? Up until the early 20th century, representatives have in large only served two terms in office. Serving in the legislative body for representatives has become a profession that has excluded itself from the community that has elected them. Does anything in the Constitution preclude term limitations? Our Founding Fathers did not include term limits when writing the Constitution. This could have been an oversight, and maybe it was deliberate. According to Jay Newton-Small, “When American democracy was being formed, many of its founders, including Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, supported congressional term limits, ‘to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress,’ as Jefferson wrote”(Newton-Small 1). Setting term limits for public offices encourages popular participation, prevents politicians from acting solely to maintain rather than advance their offices, and helps prevent political corruption. Term limits would make Congress more responsive to the people as a whole and their constituents who elected them. At one time politicians dreaded the thought of long service in office. According to Issit, “Term limits were originally conceived as a way to ensure that citizen representatives, rather than professional politicians, led the government. They were also designed to protect against the development of authoritarian regimes” (Issitt 1). If term limits for all federal offices are to be established, constitutional amendments will be necessary and will therefore require the support o... ... middle of paper ... ...protecting their corporate contributions and self preservation than the public health, safety and service. Sundquist, James L. "Constitutional Reform." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Ed. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst 2nd Ed. Vol. 2. Detroit: MacMillan Reference USA, 2000. 650-651, Gale Virtual Reference Library Separation of powers and checks and balances reflect the fact that the Constitution probably has the most difficult amending process of any constitution in the world. In the normal process, an amendment must be approved by two-thirds of each house of Congress and then be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. This makes the process of having term limits voted on by a majority almost impossible. And structural amendments redistribute power and hence create winners and losers among the political blocs.
Throughout the second chapter Levin states that there is a very small turnover in Congress and each time that election time comes into play, most of the same people are elected for position (Levin 19-32). He believes that while term limits are not enough to balance the power of the governing systems it is a step in the right direction and are necessary and a critical building block (Levin 22). In his next chapter Levin proposes an amendment that is to restore the Senate (Levin 33). This amendment would repeal the seventeenth amendment and make it to where all Senators are chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I (Levin 33). Prior to the seventeenth amendment the Senate had been chosen by legislators of each state (Levin 34). Throughout the chapter he goes on to talk about how the Framers of our nation intended the Senate to be chosen and also how we have branched away from that. He discusses several different people’s opinions on how it should be ran and also how it should be managed. He states that John Dickinson made a notion that the Senate should be chosen by the state legislatures (Levin
It is not uncommon to find members of Congress who have genuine goals of spearheading, designing or even just supporting good public policy. It would be harsh to say that every member of Congress is against good policy. However what is difficult for members of Congress is deciding what is more important, the wishes of their constituents or national policy. Although it is rare, members of Congress vote against the popular opinion of his or her district in order to make what would be considered good policy in the national interest. This hinders their chance of re-election but is necessary for America. In very rare cases members of Congress have gone against the wishes of their constituents for moral reasons like in the aftermath of 9/11. When voting on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, I am certain that the last thing of the minds of members of Congress was re-election. A very conservative House of Representatives member Jimmy Duncan said ‘‘when I pushed that button to vote against the war back in 2002, I thought I might be ending my political career.” In times of crisis members of Congress have decide between what is right, not what their constituents believe is right. Another goal other than re-election that members of Congress have is their own future. For many, being a members of The House of Representatives is a mere stepping stone in their career on the way to better things. Therefore for some members of Congress, re-election does not worry them and gives them the freedom to act in an environment striped of the constant pressure of re-election. However, considering that most of the members of The House Of Representatives goals lie within the Senate or high executive positions, re-election is still on their mind, all be it in the form of a different
Larry Sabato author of “A More Perfect Constitution” implies the United States Constitution could use some revision. Written over two hundred years ago, I do not think this concept is astonishing. I believe the founding father were aware of potential flaws, allowing for amendments or changes. Sabato book proposes some changes and the “calling for a twenty-first-century constitutional convention.” This book review will look at four of Sabato suggestions; reforming the Senate, balancing the budget, a six-year presidential term, and the Electoral College. These four recommendations were of greatest interest and intrigue. Although I do agree with all his ideas, I do feel there is more to improvement in our constitution and commend his efforts is awakening the American people to a need for reform.
2. Roche, John P. "The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 8 -- 20).
For David Mayhew Congress members are “single- minded reelection seekers”. He argues that member only think about their reelection and that it has to be reached in order to achieved other goals. He says that everything that members do revolves around their reelection and they only care about themselves. Mayhew says that there are only three actions that members of Congress can do to get themselves re-elected to Congress : credit claiming, advertising, and position taking.
Currently in the U.S. government, Congressmen and Congresswomen have terms that allow reelections after those terms finish, but no term limits. Therefore, Congressmen and Congresswomen should have term limits because it would result in diversity, citizen legislature, and competitiveness. In addition, Congressmen and Congresswomen can re elect themselves as many times as they want in the current system of the U.S. government.
The idea of term limits was first enumerated in the Articles of Confederation with the statement, “no person shall be capable of being a delegate [of Congress] for more than three years, in any term of six years” (Articles of Confederation Art. 5 §2). The founding fathers considered term limits would prevent abuse of the power held by congressmen as well as prevent unending political careerism. Without those term limits proposed in The Articles of Confederation, Congress has been saturated with the careerist attitude feared by our founding fathers as well as a low turnover of representatives, moving away from the purpose of giving
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
One of the most persuasive arguments for term limits is the very real possibility that a president in office long enough can appoint the entire Supreme Court and much of the federal judiciary in general, thus jeopardizing the independence of the judicial branch and influencing the political direction of the country for much longer than any tenure he could have (Cronin 2015, 87). President Franklin Roosevelt was actually successful in appointing all nine justices of the Supreme Court during his tenure, and although unsuccessful, he had attempted to pack the court with his own justices in his second term. Presidential appointment power has also grown beyond the judiciary to include many executive agencies that have wide-reaching and greatly unchecked
Term limits will not accomplish the reform that is needed in our federal government, because term limits will not restrain the power of our federal government. The distribution of power between our local and federal government seems main cause of call for term limits. It is true that changes have to be made in the way campaign funds are distributed and in other areas. Thus, positive results do not have to be always accomplished by repelling old lawmaking
Voters will have restricted choices although they want to vote for experienced incumbents who want to run for reelection. The term limit is not necessary because candidates have to be elected by their constituents. Jeff Biggs, press secretary for House Speaker Tom Foley, asserts that the term limit is unnecessary by saying "There are term limits in place every two years -- candidates have to go before constituents and get reelected." Although incumbents run for election again, they cannot be elected if they do not have good reputation among constituents. Other disadvantage caused by the term limit is limited power of small states, which used to reelect only few incumbents again and again. Because they have only few possible candidates, there are not enough people who can run for the next election after one person retires from Congress. However, I still do think that the term limit is necessary to distribute power evenly and keep equality. As certain people are elected for the same position again, they will get more “experience” and find much sneakier ways to keep their positions. Term limit also prevent new and young candidates who have not experienced from having less chance to work in Congress. As more skillful but unknown candidates get more chance, they will improve and change our
Our government has a system of checks and balances but without compromises, stalemate is inevitable. Constitutional amendments can be added, ratified and repealed over time. Through its amendments, our constitution is changed. Regular reviews of the constitution would ensure that is is relative to our world today.
American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the legislative and today rivals the legislative in a much closer political battle. Today both branches have major factors that contribute to their power, but on the whole the legislative remains the lastingly dominant branch.
There are different factors and goals that motivate members of Congress. However, the number one goal for Congress members is to get re-elected in Congress. Therefore, they are motivated to raise funds, meets different groups of people, have trips back to their districts and choose their activities in a day to day basis. It is shocking to know that having power and influence in Congress, social prestige and making good policy are less important to most members of Congress than the primary goal which is getting re-elected. Several steps members of Congress take to get re-elected.
Allowing congress to continuously get reelected, removes them from the real world. As many of them get elected when they are young, and remain in congress for a very long time. Enforcing term limits can help to keep politicians grounded. "With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves."(Weeks) Having term limits in place influences congress to make good choices, as they will have to abide by the laws they created, once they are done in office. "Ensuring that Members eventually are exposed to life outside of Congress should inculcate a more sophisticated understanding of the logic and the limits of federal