Imposing Congressional Term Limits

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

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

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.

Term limits have, however, been linked to more efficient legislatures across the country. With term limits, toeing the party line is less important because members of the legislature would not be seeking re-election. There would be less partisan politics and more cooperation in passing legislation that makes a positive impact on the lives of Americans.

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

Term limits are a powerful political force and a vital political reform. The movement to limit political terms and thus political power has been steamrolling through American politics for years. Many American citizens have approved term limits for Congressmen, moreover many states and hundreds of cities and counties across the United States have adopted term limits for state and local officials. Such widespread support of the phenomena shows that the public is not satisfied with the prevalent careerism and thinks that amendments to the federal legislature would be beneficial for the Congress and the country as a whole. The below paper will present objective political arguments for and against the Congressional term limits. Firstly, the arguments for the term limits will be presented, the arguments against them will proceed, followed by the conclusion drawn by the author based on the conducted research.

American people are use to being able to vote for a new president especially if the one that is in office is not doing a good job for the people. I like the way it is because when we limit it to only two terms it helps bring in qualified people with new views and that may have a different outlook on how things are being handled in the White House. Conflict will arise either way you choose to go and personally I think that if it isn’t broke why try to fix it. We as voters enjoy exercising our right to vote, but I strongly feel that the government has the right to put who it wants in office no matter what. So, presidents having limits on how long they can run is our savior because sometimes you can vote and vote and your voice remain unheard.

Having term limits would be good because there would be a definite change every so many years. If the people did not like what was going on then they would know that as soon as the term was over they could be replaced.

Currently, we have the opportunity for two four-year terms with a possibility of reelection at the end of the first term. This has created a problem because at the third year of the first term, the president will usually start campaigning for a second term. This takes away one whole year that the president could be focusing on the interest of the nation rather than his own election interests. Having a six-year term with an opportunity to be given a two-year extension would cease the worrying about campaigning for reelection. Without the possibility of reelection, the president would have no incentive to prolong controversial decisions or the President doing certain things to ensure his or her reelection. The President would have an option to ask for a two-year extension which could be denied or approved by the voters. If the President was denied the two-year extension, they would end their presidency at the end of the sixth year. If the voters approved, the term would end at eight years. Since the President would have no opponent in the fifth-year, he or she would likely focus on the nation’s interests, making good decisions to earn him or herself another two-years. Replacing the two four-year terms has many benefits not only for the president but for the nation. COME UP WITH TRANSITIONAL

The Blaine campaign targeted Cleveland’s record as governor of New York in a leaflet posted in New York City. Cleveland vetoed several bills that were authored by the New York Assembly under Theodore Roosevelt. One of these bills, the Tenure-of-Office Bill, would have shortened the term of the superintendent of public works, Hubert Thompson, who was known to be corrupt. Roosevelt also supervised a committee that convicted Sheriff Davidson, a leader of Irving Hall, of stealing large sums of money from New York City. Furthermore, Cleveland encountered widespread criticism from vetoing a bill that provided care for a crippled soldier, James Young. The Blaine campaign drew attention to rejected bills that would have assisted the working class.

In this essay, I propose to amend the Constitution by introducing a required term limit for Supreme Court justices. I am proposing this change because I believe that implementing a term limit will lead to an increased representation of the people and eliminate possible obstructions to the Supreme Court’s ability to do its job.

Recently, our nation’s congress is in a standstill with a divided government. We have more republicans in the legislative branch, but our president is democrat making it very difficult to get anything done. We need a president who can create greater cooperation between democrats and republicans while representing the middle class. Currently, the top one-tenth of one percent has more wealth than the bottom 99 percent combined. This outrageous inequality has to be prevented by dissolving wealth towards those in the bottom. America does have the highest corporate tax rates, but this does not give a liable reason to not pay them, large American companies such as GM and Seagate are making massive profits while paying 0% tax. Therefore, we need economic

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

Lowering the voting age, would also represent a problem. Do voters under the age of 18 really have the judgment to choose the best candidate for the job?, I do not think so.

I feel like lowering the voting age would instantly increase the number of voters.Some people say it might not help but I honestly think it