28th Amendment Benefits

Many people think that with term limits we would lose experience, maturity, and knowledge of the workings of Congress. However, this is not correct. The workings of Congress need not be nearly so complex as careerists would have us think. However, great pains have been exerted to give us that impression. A term-limited Congress could get the nation's business accomplished in a fraction of the time that it takes now, with all the posturing, posing, ego trips and headline-grabbing. And a term-limited Congress could streamline all the procedures. As for experience we would be better off without some of it. What is needed is experience in the real world life experiences from new blood, with fresh ideas. With term limits, congressional staff people would gain control, is another widely used argument against term limits. The fallacy of that argument is that the staff people already have control. Through the years, Congress has abdicated it to them. Committee staffs write the legislation, and members' staffs read it, then tell members what's in it. Members themselves rarely read what they vote on. In a country where ignorance of the law is no excuse, members of Congress are often ignorant of many of the provisions of laws they vote on. Congress and its members could regain control from the staffs right now, if they had the will. They don't have the will. A term limited Congress that had the will could get control of the staffs in a very short period of

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

Living in the present and looking back at the past, we as citizens see what has worked and what can be improved; Congress is a good example of this. Some may say that Congress is a failure and some may be happy and proud of the way it functions and runs our country. For those who do not approve of it, the idea is to start fresh and get new ideas, people and habits into office. With the way Congress works today, that may not be the easiest tasks. In order to make changes in Congress, time is needed; a significant change cannot be made over night and expect it to run smoothly. One of the ways to bring change and settle the debate of whether or not to ‘restart Congress’ is to set term limits on congressional members. There should be term

Term limits, thus provide an escape from the Faustian bargain that voters face: they know that returning an incumbent for another term may help their district, but in the long run it has dire institutional and national consequences. Voters realize even though the Congressman is doing good things for their district soon they will need someone new. They know long-term officeholders become less vulnerable because they come gradually to identify their interests more and more with those of the federal government. There is a strong relationship between length of legislative service and votes in favor of more public expenditures.

In conclusion, life terms for Supreme Court justices are beneficial to both the government and the people of the United States of America. Furthermore, changing the current system would be a hassle

“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever,” declared by past President William Howard Taft. Dated in 1789, the Judiciary Act by signed by Congress, which was demanded by the United States Constitution. This past principal court was ruled by a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices, accordingly today we still have a Chief Justice, but we currently have eight Associate Justices. The current Supreme Court has John G. Roberts, Jr. as Chief Justice, and the following are the current Associate Justices: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Clarence Thomas, a conservative, best known as the second

There is a lot of argument regarding the issue of term limits, in which a service in elective office after a fixed and specified number of terms is directed. The idea of issuing term limits is not only a damage to the Constitution, but also a quick fix to a problem that may just end up affecting severe outcomes down the line. Authorizing term limits to deal with the corruption among congressmen is not a normal solution. If some parts of the system were dishonest, term limits would basically get cleared of everyone, those upsetting Congress both negatively and positively. At that juncture new representatives are selected and they become corrupt and are soon thrown out, and this cycle of continuing corruption will go on and on for a while, and would not be fixed. Likewise, the fact that term limit gives a

Numerous Americans are unaware that by next year, the average age of Supreme Court justices will be 75. Unlike other countries, the United States’ Supreme Court does not enforce the idea of term limits. Once a judge is selected, when they leave the Supreme Court is up to their decision. Supreme Court justices may choose to retire early or die. However, as the judges are getting older and older, their health may intervene with the decisions that are being made. Issues regarding the health of the justices’ would not be a reoccurring annoyance if they were to be swapped out with younger and healthier judges; therefore, term limits are a good idea because there would be more diversity in the Supreme Court, mental and health issues would be reduced, and term limits would be long enough for judges to master the job.

In today’s society I believe the Supreme Court Justices should have term limits. When a president appoints a judge to serve in the Supreme Court he generally picks a judge who is of the same opinion as him regarding the laws. For example, say the President picks a forty something year old Supreme Court Justice, he could be there for the next four decades. Having the same opinions of the law as he had when first appointed forty years ago. I do not think this is the way our countries’ laws should be ruled on. As society changes with every decade that passes, different issues arise at different times.

It is a good thing there are not term limits. Election time should be used to elemenate unwanted office members. If someone is doing a good job then there is not reason to changes thing. It is very hard to fix things that are not

Throughout America, there has been many talks of the Supreme Court having term limits. This is an idea that has been talked about for a while now. But it is impossible because of the constitution. In article III it states that “The judges, both Supreme Court and interior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior”. So it is reasonable and can be changed into an 18 year proposal. So therefore, having term limits is a good idea because changing judges more often would result in more diversity, changing judges so much decreases health issues and the majority of the Americans favors term limits.

unlimited terms) must be assuaged or tempered by the fear of ‘elective dictatorship’ -a President using the advantages of having extended time in office to win one election after another. Unlimited terms will eventually lead to a dictatorship/monarchy, exactly what our country and Founding Fathers were trying to reject. History shows this to be true with historians often pointing to George Washington’s decision to retire after his second term as evidence that our nation’s founders saw a two-term limit as a protection against monarchy. Thomas Jefferson also contributed to the convention of a two-term limit when he wrote, “if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life” in 1807. No President, while some did seek it, received more that two-terms in office until Franklin Roosevelt whom won four elections but died in office. After that the governor of New York, Thomas E. Dewey, announced support of what would later be the 22nd amendment. He stated, "Four terms, or sixteen years, is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed." Simply stated, America’s beginnings are based on the rejection of monarchy and cronyism: the 22nd Amendment stops this from coming about by other

A common belief across the United states is that congress is not performing as well as they could, or should, be. One solution that citizens often come to, is implement term limits for Congress. Unlike many political debates, this one cannot be clearly divided between republican and democratic viewpoints. Term limits would be a clear message to congress saying, ‘this is the amount of time you have to fix the problems facing this country, and if you cannot do that, we will replace you someone who can’. Though no longer on the federal political agenda, the desire for congressional term limits has steadily grown over time for many reasons. Among these lie the desires to push career politicians out of office, to build trust with the American people, and preventing any sort of greed that might occur in a longstanding politician.

Term limits allows for a constant flow to introduce new individuals to the Federal government. If there were individuals that enjoyed a specific Federal

It was passed by Congress in 1947 on March 21 and was ratified on Feb. 27, 1951 almost four years later. Not too long ago, many presidents had actually considered running for more than two terms. Ulysses. Grant, Grover Cleveland, and Theodore Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to and only Franklin Roosevelt succeeded. He won a third and fourth term. A few years later, Congress took into consideration a proposal to limit presidency to two terms. The 22nd amendment was debated, passed, and ratified without much drama. I would change this amendment because with proper background searches, voting, and careful consideration I think it’d be very wise to have the availability to keep a president in office for more than two terms if citizens agree to it. I think that there should be a limit but not at exactly two terms. I believe that it should be up to the people voting to decide who is president and for how long they want to keep that person their president, especially if they’re doing well in office. You can find the amendment process in the two ways that amendments are proposed. Amendments can be proposed by Congress if at least 2/3 of the members of both the House of Representatives (290) and the senate (67) vote for it. Step 1 in amending the constitution is that two-thirds of both houses of Congress pass a constitutional amendment. This sends the amendment to the states for ratification. Three-fourths of