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. Initially, the Founders intended to have a limit on the amount of time any one person could serve. In the Articles of Confederation, a rotation in office system was described, so that no one person could remain in a position for decades on end. However, this was abandoned in the Constitution because it was deemed unnecessary. At the time of the nation’s founding, the occupation of “politician” did not exist. One could hold an office for a number of years, but it was not considered a career path. Originally, politicians were seen as making great sacrifices, because they stepped away from their family and primary jobs for a number of years to serve their country, before returning to their normal lives (Vance, 1994, p. 429). In the words of Founding Father Roger Sherman, “The representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of the government, they will acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those... ... middle of paper ... ... crack due to career politicians disregarding the governmental system created by the Founders. Works Cited CRS Rep., 104th Cong., 1-2 (1997). CRS Rep., 106th Cong., 3-5 (2000). Kurfirst, R. (1996). Term-limit logic: paradigms and paradoxes. Polity, 29.1, 119-140. Madison, J. (1788, Feb. 19). The Federalist no. 57: The alleged tendency of the new plan to elevate the few at the expense of the many considered in connection with representation. New York Packet. Retrieved from http://constitution.org/fed/federa57.htm U.S. Const., art. I, § 2. Vance, D.A. (1994). State-imposed congressional term limits: what would the Founders of the Constitution say?. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1994, 429. Weissert, C., & Halperin, K. (2007). The paradox of term limit support: to know them is not to love them. Political Research Quarterly, 60.3, 516-517.
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
In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In “If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?” author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.
6. Hamilton, Alexander and James Madison, "Federalist Papers: Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention," The New York Packet, No. 49, 1788.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
The Honorable Jonathan Yates, former deputy general counsel for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U. S. House of Representatives, writes, “This lifetime term now enjoyed by justices not only contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, it counters the role intended for the court as a minor player in the equal judiciary branch of government. Term limits are needed to adjust the part of the court to the intent of the founding fathers” (Np). Judge Yates explains that the greatest powers of the Supreme Court did not originate from the Constitution or Congress, but from their own rulings (Np). The most prominent of which, was being Marbury v. Madison, in which the court granted itself judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation (Yates). Furthermore, the intended role of the court by the founding fathers was so small, that it did not have a home, or meet to hear any cases (Yates). An amendment to the Constitution removing the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court judges needs consideration by Congress. Lifetime tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court has led to four points that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Constitution. The first problem resulting from the Supreme Court’s tenure policy is that judges’ are holding on to their seats, disregarding debilitating health issues. The second issue that has arisen from lifetime tenure is the use of strategic retirement by sitting judges to ensure a like-minded replacement. The third development resulting from lifetime tenure is the steady decrease in case decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fourth and final effect lifetime tenure has had on the Supreme Court is an increase in celebrity status of the judges, which has le...
One important reason Americans want to limit terms of their elected representatives is because they are likely to blame what they observe as professional and almost permanent ruling elect of career politicians for a majority of the country’s ill. Supporters of term limits claim the advantages of incumbency are so overpowering that they instead decrease representative democracy and diminish the effectiveness of the government. “Since 1950, about 90% of all incumbents in the House have won the reelection. The 10% who do not return includes both retiring members and those defeated in reelection attempts.” (Term Limits) “Proponents term limits argue that elected officials in Washington eventually become estrang...
It was John Adams who noted that "men in general, in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also little too acquainted with public affairs for a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own."1 This shared attitude guided the Founding Fathers in their establishment of what has become America's modern day political system. When today's modern day student is asked just what sort of system that was, it seems the answer is always "democracy." In reality, the House of Representatives is the nearest idea in accordance with a system of democracy that this country would ever reach.2 Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were the wealth and success of their time, and coincidentally, it was these same men that fashioned a structure in which wealth and success were the ultimate judges of where power was to fall. The Founding Fathers did not seek democratic reform, but rather sought personal gain in the form of ultimate power.
Upon first examination, the idea of implementing term limits in Congress is appealing. In fact, the idea of term limits was initially discussed by our founders, though it was eventually decided that it should not be included in the Constitution (Newton-Small, 2010). The reasons for considering term limits have remained consistent since the beginning of the country, however, and include ensuring legislative turnover, limiting the abuse of the power of seniority, and decreasing the advantages given to incumbents in the campaign process. Interestingly, the states that have adopted term limits have not seen the expected positive outcomes, nor have the opponents seen the dire results that had been predicted. Upon further investigation, the case for term limits is strong as long as it is a nationally based initiative in order to create uniformity and the limits are long enough to increase competence in the job and head off short-term thinking, however without increased voter involvement, no reform will solve the current concerns with Congress.
If we take a more in-depth look at the composition of Congress we see a body disproportionate with its Nation. Congress has maintained a fairly homogenous make-up since its founding even into the year 2001. This conclusion raises no eye brows as both the executive and judicial branches of government have also maintained a very white, male, Protestant resemblance. However, Congress was formed for a distinct purpose: to represent the people of the United States of America. The melting pot of America’s huddled masses has been slow in placing leaders that truly represent its demographics.
The Founding Fathers who composed the Constitution did, actually, consider and dismiss the possibility of congressional term limits. In Federalist Papers No. 53, James Madison, father of the
Presidential term limits, imposed by the 22nd amendment, could easily face the same scrutiny as congressional term limits because they impede the ability of the American people to vote for whomever they wish to serve as president. However, term limits on the president do not face the same intensity of argument as do term limits on members of Congress, perhaps because members of Congress place their own career on the line in voting for a congressional term limits amendment. If restrictions on the number of terms the president can serve are considered democratic, there should be no reason that restrictions on congressional terms are
Elected officials often hold their position for an extensive duration of time. The founding fathers placed a length of time before the terms of senators, representatives, and executives are expired and need to be reelected in the Constitution, and the twenty-second amendment placed term limits on the United States president. Why ought to other elected officials have term limits?
Congressional term limits of two, four year terms must be imposed for the U.S to be a healthy democracy. Incumbency advantage enables politicians to spread the same ideas for long years. For instance, Senator John McCain has been reelected to the U.S Senate five times, from 1986 to 2016. Term limits will ensure urgency in getting important legislation passed. Moreover, senators will get one shot to fulfill their constituents wishes and get elected.
They wanted the power to be in the hands of the people which is why, it was decided that "The House of Representatives, the body of congress that directly represents the people, would be sent back to the people every two years for re- election" (Beckett) The framers thought this would help to keep politicians liable to the people. The issue of whether or not term limits for congress should be implemented, is a huge concern among many Americans. Some claim that congress have become corrupt, power hungry politicians, more concerned with getting re elected then, the needs of the people. While others say that term limits takes away the power of the people, and are not needed because of the already existing re
The House of Representatives voted 227-204 in favor of an amendment that would limit its own terms, in 1995. Unfortunately, even though the bill was able to get majority it did not get the 2/3 vote it needed, but it is a start. By knowing that this amendment could actually go through, voters can worry about other aspects of the legislation. The proposed term limits should not be any shorter than 10 years, as mentioned above this job has a learning curve, by allowing members to stay on for 10 or more years they would feel that they have enough time to get what they want done without the added benefit of staying indefinitely. The legislation would not go into effect immediacy, that is people who have been their past the term limit would not be automatically kicked out. The election cycle would still go on as planes, luckily voting for congress is in waves, so we do not replace every member at once. This gives the added benefit of allowing new members to spend time with experienced members and making sure the congress is not filled with inexperienced