Resolved: The XXII Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (U.S. Constitution Preamble) Case Structure: 1) “We the People” This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people.”(1) At the time this was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U.S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. …show more content…
In front of you a stack of resumes’. Are you going to look through and remove from consideration any and all candidates that have experience? Of course not!? If anything, experience is a positive impact on who may be chosen. Before even allowing the American people to exercise their sovereignty and consider who the best person for the office may be, the XXII Amendment of the United States Constitution does just that. It removes from consideration those with the most experience. This is not only foolish, but harmful. This amendment sets term limits to the office of the president. Setting a term limit mitigates the natural function of elections. The people should have the power to determine if a politician has served enough terms as President. If the people feel this is the case. They could simple vote that politician out of office. Thus the impact of this amendment is to limit the sovereignty and choice of the people. This is in direct conflict with our founding principles. I contend that the people should retain the sovereignty to decide when a politician is not suitable for the office of President through voting. To undermine this freedom and sovereignty of the people is to allow
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
The red-scare caused fear among the people of communists, so the industrialists would enjoy and promote the public’s red-scare because they used it as a way to stop the up-and-coming unions from existing if possible.
In conclusion, Congressional representatives should be limited to serving two terms. Limiting the terms of career politicians will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. It is in our Country’s best interest that our legislator’s decisions are equitable and that compromises are not made to ensure their own or their parties stay in office.
The eighteenth amendment states that alcoholic beverages in the United States was prohibited. They did this by making production, transport, and sale of alcohol illegal. This amendment basically states that alcohol is illegal. I am against this amendment for a few reason such as manufacturing different, stronger stuff to bend the law.
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
The Living Constitution is the best solution to the country's problems and democracy. The living constitution allows the federal judges to be able to incorporate new laws into modern situations. Allowing the constitution to become flexible rather than trying to adapt current situations into laws that were made for the old world. Justice Breyer says “We require a constitution that works well for the people today.” If the constitution was able to fix all the current problems then this topic would not have come up. The constitution is specific to the Framers and their problems. Also as Justice Marshall states, “To change the rules in the future, because it is unwise to not change the constitution when you need it most.” This statement is wise
On September 17, 1787, 39 delegates from the thirteen colonies elegantly signed their names on the United States Constitution. Even as the signers read and marveled over their written documentation of our new government, they realized problems could still emerge in the Constitution that would need to be addressed. To solve this dilemma, the delegates came up with a way that the Constitution could be changed so that future generations could patch up any holes they found in this important document. These changes are called Amendments, and today there are a total of 27 of them. Each Amendment is crucial to our Constitution, but which one is the most important? It’s strongly believed that compared to the other 26 corrections, the first Amendment is the most essential to our country’s Constitution because only the first Amendment protects our rights to religious worship and to oppose what we think doesn’t belong in the government.
But the government’s heart can be sapped by incumbents. This threat shows that the Framers failed to create a necessary check on the legislative branch to prevent incumbents from manipulating the districts of voters for self-gain. Hence, my amendment is necessary to protect the government’s democracy-heart. If politicians choose their voters rather than the other way around, is the United States still a democracy at all? Or is it simply a governmental tin man with no
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
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 amendments are a set of rights assured to every American as part of the freedom our country promises. The amendment that will be the focal point of this paper, the second, was ratified in 1791. It states, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Our country was a completely different place during those times, which is the reason I believe the Bill of Rights should be rewritten, and updated every so often. By updated, I do not mean anything taken away or added to it, but for the way it was written to be altered. If it was more easily understandable there would be no leeway for people to get away with limiting these rights of our people.
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.
The original U.S. constitution was established with the intention to create a whole national government and protect the natural and legal rights of the citizens of the United States. Ratified in 1791, the first seven amendments (in addition to the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution broadly summarizes an American’s rights as well as the powers of the federal and state systems. With the Constitution, every American citizen is entitled to equality… at least the ones who are seen as citizens. Unfortunately, the original U.S. constitution shouldn’t be considered a “democratic” document due to this exact reason. The phrase “We The People” was only permitted to those who, in the eyes of the founding fathers, met the qualifications
The United States has one of the best Constitutions that the world has seen, it has lasted through the years, through many different situations and it still survives to this day. One of the main benefits of our Constitution is that it is flexible, if our government finds it necessary, they can change and ratify the document to better govern our country. While many of our amendments have gone through change throughout the years, there is one that still needs to be changed. The 22nd amendment of the United States was ratified to combat anyone in the position as President from staying in office too long, thus giving them more power than they should have. While this was a good policy to enact it only enforced term limits on the President, not any of the other branches of government, even though these
Throughout history, Term limits have been a very controversial issue as well as a powerful reform regarding politics. Term limits can best be defined as a restriction or a limit to a number of times an official may be elected or serve. For years, American politics have been dealing with the movement to limit political terms. Though there are some who disapprove of term limits for Congressmen, there are many Americans who have approved. There is widespread support on Term Limits, which shows us that the public is dissatisfied with what is occurring in Congress presently. In many states, cities and counties across the United States term limits have been established for state and local officials. Congress is currently running on a system of seniority. Individuals who have spent the most time in office gain more power. As a result, these Congressmen focus on how they can stay in office and that plan leaves limited room for fresh new officials to have a chance to make changes. Term limits should be placed on our Congressmen and women because it would allow for a more efficient Congress.