In his article " Term limits for Congress: Would amending the Constitution 'drain the swamp'?", published on The Christian Science Monitor web page, Steven Porter describes the idea of proposition of constitutional amendment concerning term limits of the U.S. Congress members. According to this proposition, the new term limits should be reduced to three two-year terms and two six-year terms for House of Representative and Senate members respectingly. The author argues, that even though there are a lot of barriers for the amendment to become a law, supporters of this measure believe that the nation is willing to get these changes done. S. Porter supports his idea by considering opinions and arguments of both sides, those supporting the ratification
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
The excerpt “Congress: The Electoral Connection” written by David Mayhew centers around the fundamental arguments that discusses how members of congress are self-interested for reelection. Mayhew further elaborates on his idea by discussing the electoral activities that congress members devote their time into and resource from, which are advertising, credit-claiming, and position taking. Mayhew’s excerpt further examines the framework in how congress operates which contributes to the explanation of how and why congress partakes in the certain electoral activities.
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.
Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Oleszek, and Frances E. Lee. Congress and Its Members. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2009. Print.
I agree with the statement, “The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, limiting the American president to elected terms in office, has been successful and should be retained. This amendment has facilitated rotation in office and new ideas, both crucial to an effective democracy.”. The statement is an agreeable because it does not deprive citizens of their right to elect, it opens the candidate pool, problems have not arisen, and stops the country from being a monarchy. The 22nd Amendment limits the American president to two terms, totaling to eight years in office. The restrictions made by the 22nd Amendment have not proven to be a problem.
Congress should pass an amendment that requires a staggered 18-year term limit on the tenure of Supreme Court justices. Under this proposal, each justice would serve for 18 years, and the terms would be established so that there is a vacancy every two years. The vacancies would be on the first and third years of the presidential term. This would allow enough time so the senate would pass this nomination through and the president would not be denied one of his two appointees. The
Yes, I think Congress has too much power. Because under the constitution, Congress has the most important power and that is to make/change laws. (The powers of Congress-http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6a.asp) In this paper I will explain to you how Congress has too much power by, it being split into two large bicameral legislatures, they have the power of impeachment, and they have the power to approve the spending of federal money.
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.
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
Term limits are a powerful political force and political reform. Throughout the establishment of the United States government, term limits have provided the American citizens the ability to regulate executive power. Many American citizens approve of the idea of term limits for Congressmen, along with many states and hundreds of cities and counties across the United States, yet the application of term limits of those in Congress has yet to be set. On the contrary, however, some state and local governments have adopted term limits for officials. This active and swift spread of support demonstrates that the public is not satisfied with the efforts of their prevalent careerism and think that adding amendments to the federal legislator would benefit Congress and the nation as
Government exists to serve the people, and not the politicians, American citizens know this. Polls show that Americans want term limitation by margins as high as three-to-one, even four-to-one. Congressional term limitation is the most important issue of our time because the future direction of our country depends upon it. There is no other way to restore government to, us, the people. There is no substitute for term limits. There are many second steps, depending upon where you sit, but there is only one first step toward turning the country around. It is con...
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...
Schultze, C. (1995) “The Balanced Budget Amendment: Needed? Effective? Efficient? National Tax Journal, Vol 48