When the twenty-second amendment was ratified February 27, 1951 Congress limited the office of the president to two terms of four years each. During the debate Congress made no attempt to address term limits for Congress. According to the United State Senate website as of January 9, 2018 the longest running senator was Democrat representing West Virginia Robert C. Byrd length of service was fifty-one years, five months, and twenty-six days. (US Senate 2018). When the Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1789, at the time professional politicians were unheard of, and the idea of someone serving for more than one or two terms was unlikely. My proposed amendment is for congress term limits of two terms for Senators and three terms for House of …show more content…
This book became the most influential during the French Revolution. Similar, to Madison, Jean Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract states when voting in assemblies, people should not vote for what they want personally, but for what they believe is the general will. In a healthy state, the results of these votes should approach unanimity. (Asheville Reader) This statement is a juxtaposition for corruption of congressmen found with the government. Congressmen who only vote in their own best interest do not have the governing body best interest at heart. Rousseau claimed that the state of society was a primitive condition without law or morality. As society developed, division of labor and private property required humanity to adopt the institutions of law. And according to Rousseau by joining humanity through the social contract and abandoning the claims of natural rights, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. In the situation of government corruption remaining free, means free from corruption and governing with the best body best interest at
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
Change is difficult and requires strong support from the voters to start the process. Currently, the two houses of the United States Congress are not restricted as to the number of terms they may serve. Under our Constitution, members of the Senate may serve an unlimited number of six-year terms and members of the House of Representatives may serve an unrestricted number of two-year terms. Their job consists of protecting the interests of their constituents (the voters back home). They organize committees to study issues of public policy, recommend action, and pass laws. Both houses of Congress must approve a bill for it to become a law. To begin the process of restricting the years of Congressional terms, it would require recommending a bill for an amendment separately and the proposal being debated in the two houses of Congress. If the bills were passed by two-thirds of the legislators in each House of Congress, then the bills would be combined into a Joint Resolution which would be sent to each of the fifty States. The Joint Resolution would be placed upon each Sta...
“Incumbency is the time during which a person holds a particular office or position.” (Incumbency) An incumbent candidate is a candidate who is returning to a position or office. The president can serve only two four year terms. Senators and legislators can serve an unlimited amount of six year terms. Since George Washington was president, presidents usually served two terms. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt served four terms. This resulted in the 22nd amendment limiting the amount of terms to two. The 22nd amendment was passed by congress on March, 21st 1947 and ratified by the states in February 27th, 1951.
Jean–Jacques Rousseau in ‘The Social Contract and Discourses’ examines the inequality created among men in society (civilisation.) Rousseau attempts to demonstrate the fundamental attributes of human beings in the ‘state of nature’ and how inequality arises and corrupts the ‘savage’ through the process of civilisation. What he terms moral inequality is deemed unnatural and only occurs in societies where man has become more ‘civilised.’ The ‘savage’ on the other hand, described is like an animal acting as nature dictates, “being destitute of every species of enlightenment...his desires never go beyond
Rousseau clearly promotes a perfect society in the Social Contract which according to his theory would eliminate all society problems. Although such a society would be wonderful, the ideas would not work, quite simply because of the wants and desires of the human for himself and his family. Bibliography Boucher and Kelly, Political thinkers, from Socrates to the present Steven M Cahn, classics of political and moral philosophy
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
When the United States was founded, the theme behind the new government was to establish an efficient system without doling out too much power to any one person. The Founders intended to prevent a rebirth of tyranny, which they had just escaped by breaking away from England. However, when members of Congress such as Tom Foley, who served as a Representative from 1964 through 1995, and Jack Brooks, who served as a Representative from 1952 through 1994, remain in the legislative system for over forty years, it is evident that tyranny has not necessarily been eradicated from the United States (Vance, 1994, p. 429). Term limits are a necessity to uphold the Founders’ intentions, to prevent unfair advantages given to incumbents, and to allow a multitude of additional benefits.
In the Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the idea of forced freedom. “Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the entire body; which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free” (Rousseau, SC, Bk 1. Ch. 7). This forced freedom is necessary for a government that is run by the people and not a small group of few to one sovereign(s). For forced freedom allows a difference of opinions but the outcome is the idea with the greatest acceptance. Because political rule requires the consent of the ruled, the citizens of the state are required to take action within their community.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “The Social Contract”. Modern Political Thought, Second Edition. Ed. David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2008. 427-487.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. "On Democracy." Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. 179-80. Print.