Congressmen See The Incumbency Advantage As A Blessing

Therefore elections every two years in the House mean representatives have to stay in touch to remain electable. Also high rates of incumbency success, typically over 90% in the House and 80% in the Senate, suggests a high level of voter satisfaction with the members of congress themselves. Therefore if the people felt out of touch with the members of congress that represent them they would simple not vote for them in the following election. Therefore high incumbency rates displays the satisfaction with the members of congress suggesting that they are in touch with the people.

Until 1951, there was no law restricting the number of times the president of the United States could run for office. After the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment. Since its ratification, the highly controversial amendment has survived every attempted repeal. Contemporary presidents of both parties, President Regan and President Clinton, supported repealing or modifying the amendment whereas other presidents believed a repeal would result in political stagnation. While there are certain benefits of restricted term limits, the otherwise undemocratic 22nd Amendment should be repealed.

This point is backed up even more by the time members have before they face re-elections, as in the Senate this period is every six years but only every two in the house. Consequently displaying the implication of House members being less important than that of Senators who have a longer period to make themselves known to their people and carry out their work without the hindrance of elections.

People tend to look out for themselves and what better way to do that than to hold the great power of lawmaking. With that being said, congressmen are reelected every two years. In order to keep getting reelected, congressmen apply the strategy of pork barreling. Pork barreling is a process where congressmen make changes based on investments versus new legislation. For example, they might consider building dams, installing new sewage plants, or improving infrastructure. Federal projects like these have a direct, positive impact that citizens observe right away. However, if a congressman votes on a civil rights issue, a citizen may have trouble relating those efforts to themselves. Therefore, congressmen choose to spend money on their districts in order to get

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

Also, how could we protect one aspect of the current system that we have in place so we never have all freshman Senators and Representatives in office. The danger would potentially lead to them possibly be persuaded into corruption by outside influences.

As a remedy to the issues in Congress, term limits should be implemented in the US Congress because they can prevent corruption and provide turnover in Congress. Throughout the years, working as a Congressman has become

Congressional terms have no limits. Controversy exists between those who think the terms should be limited and those who believe that terms should remain unlimited. The group that wants to limit the terms argues that the change will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. Those who oppose term limits believe that we would sacrifice both the stability and experience held by veteran politicians. They also point out that our election process allows the voter to limit terms, at their discretion. While experience and stability are important considerations, congressional terms should be limited to a maximum of two.

If Congress should have term limits or not has been a long debated question that is suggested as an amendment to the qualifications division of the Constitution. There are outstanding arguments on both side of the issue 5; unconstitutionality versus limiting power and mixture versus seniority are just a few. Term limits are requirement to upload the founder’s objectives, to inhibit unfair advantages given to resident, and to permit an assembly of additional benefits. Opponents of term limits have said in today’s world we need men and women to represent them in congress and term limits which will remove legislators when the start to become useful to constituents.

The 22nd amendment limits a person to two terms as president in order to prevent “executive tyranny”.

However, Professor Sabato studies have shown that a four year term is too short for a president, since “under current conditions in most circumstances, a president has less than two years in office during his first term before reelection politics begin intensively” (Sabato 84). To resolve this presidential timing problem, one must change the number of terms in a year. According to Sabato, the president’s first term would change from four years to six years, and the second term (if the president is reelected) will be an extra two years. In addition, for reelection, the president will run for office against himself, whether the president would be re elected into presidency or not. This way, not only does the president not have to “worry about reelection” and would “focus on the true national interest rather than his personal election interests,” but also the president has more time in office his first term to fulfill those responsibilities and obligations.

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

One of the advantages that incumbents enjoy in congressional elections is due to “Pork barrel politics” this term is used when congressmen and senators focus government funds into their home

Wayne, Lasser, Miller and others tend to agree that lobbyists and PACs have a great amount of influence over congress members because they may have direct connections and give campaign contributions. Recently, the airlines industry convinced congress to pass a $15 billion aid package it needs in order to survive. “The airlines had plenty of resources to draw on: 27 in-houses lobbyists, augmented by lobbyists from 42 Washington firms, including former White House aides and transportation secretaries, as well as the airlines own chief executives and corporate board members, whom all are well known in the halls of congress”(Wayne, NYT, 10/01/01. Lasser, American Politics, 1999. Miller, The American Prospect, 10/23/00. Geiger, Washington Post, 11/4-10/91.)

Imposing term limits on the United States Congress could potentially lead to a massive reduction of knowledgeable politicians in the American government, thus resulting in a fatal blow to the future of American progression. When term limits are imposed, it has been shown that legislatures eventually lose valuable leaders, that have the experience of law making and representing their districts with excellence. The national legislation also would willingly increase the power held by the Executive Branch, this intern could compromise the checks and balances system.