Into:.. Lifelong, What Does This Term Mean To You? According

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

However, statistics show that currently there is a ninety-four percent re-election rate in the House and eighty-three percent in the Senate. Because of name recognition and the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Representative John Dingell, Jr. of Michigan is an example of a long-serving politician. He is now eighty-seven years of age and has been serving continuously in the House of Representatives for more than fifty-seven years. Obviously, Representative Dingell has the experience. However, age may have impaired some of the effectiveness he exhibited earlier in his career. More than likely, he would not have the stamina required for the non-stop debates that we witnessed prior to the recent government shut-down. Representative Dingell certainly has had no effective campaign competition during his almost fifty-eight years in office. Without legitimate competition, there are not a lot of incentives for a member of Congress to serve the public. Furthermore, it is almost impossible for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress. 3

America’s founding father, George Washington, set the pattern for presidential term limits to two four year terms; but not through any legislative means. Before 1947, there were no term limit rules. George Washington’s footsteps as the first President set an unbroken precedent for term limits, but it wasn’t until much later that the 22nd Amendment was passed. In more recent years, politicians and citizens alike have begun to point out more of the flaws in the two-term limit than ever before; and they are on the right track. Restricting the president to a two-term limits the president’s effectiveness in office, provides the opportunity for an elected president to abuse power, and restricts a current president from continuing a successful policy even when majority wishes for the opposite

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.

John Dingell, a member of the United States House of Representatives, served fifty-nine years and twenty-one days at this position. With no term limits set for the federal legislative positions in the United States, is this representation becoming redundant? Term limits can potentially be crucial in political reform of the United States that would bring new perspectives to federal legislative positions, warrant regular federal legislative turnover, and reduce incentives for wasteful election-related federal spending. Term limits can also pervert the entire understanding of what democracy is, by substituting the people’s will with term limits that may go against what the people want. United States federal legislative term limits have previously

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

First, congress salaries are very heavily bashed on by the public. An average congress member attains a salary just shy of $100,000. Many members of congress start off making roughly $80,000-$90,000 annually. Therefore, an abundance of people argue that their salary is too high. Although they have a decent salary to sit on, they aren’t overly wealthy. In contrast, members may work their way up in power, yet don’t generate much of a raise other than a few thousand annually. Back when the constitution was being formed, many of our nation’s top builders predicted a president leading the USA. Granted the president description was extremely vague, we soon realized how powerful presidency and high powers truly are. After several presidencies and wars, among other awry events, we quickly discovered the roles and objectives of these political leaders. Furthermore, the role of presidency has been altered greatly over the course of time. The separation of power ultimately led to the creation of a two-party system. Lastly, the issue of re-election arises. Re-election rates have generated a fair amount of complaints among American’s. The idea of limiting terms for congress members has become a common thought. If this followed through, it may generate mixed feelings for our country. Everybody has different stances on our nation’s higher powers, but perception is critical, depending on the

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.

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

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

As I watch and observe these documentaries by Peter Sagal, it is obvious that the points lead to our broken Congress. Though we may have recognized our political issues, we have done little to nothing to find solutions. Moreover our recent issues, privacy has been greatly noticed, but many of us do not understand what we are really doing. Seemingly, we do give our privacy away by posting on social media, however, is there a limit to it? Tapping into our cell phones, snooping to our emails, does the government really have a right to walk through our privacy? We may not also realize that the constitution was not meant to last forever per se, but it was meant to be changed over time. There was a disagreement at the era of the creation of the constitution,

Term limits will be instituted on U.S. Supreme Court Justices in order to better reflect the intentions of the Founder Fathers, to adapt to a changing society, and to end the problem of cognitive impairment due to age related decline. The Constitution, as written by the Founding Fathers, limits absolute power and is based on a system of checks and balances. They considered it improper for any one individual to wield vast power for long periods of time. Life tenure meant serving about ten years because life expectancy was about 60 years.

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

We have numerous politicians that have held office for multiple terms despite the steady decline of our economy.