Pros And Cons Of 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.

Many people who are elected are very well known names, so often reelects. Having term limits gives people a chance to get their name out there and run for positions. According to the site Our Generation, “There is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate. Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Without legitimate competition, what is the incentive for a member of Congress to serve the public? Furthermore, it is almost a lost cause for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress.” People are not very likely to vote for someone they have never heard of. That’s why people start out in their states, become politicians and work their way up. If it wasn’t for term limits, then there would be not room for them to advance. The term limits make politicians think about and worker harder toward their objectives. No one is going to get anything done if they have all the time in the world. Politicians have limited time in each position to prove themselves if they are ever to be reelected or move up the line of

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

The issue of limiting the number of terms that a Congressman or a Senator can seek re-election is a huge hot button issue today. It is also an issue that has a rather large conflict of interest stamp behind it. The reason for this is because our Senators and Congressman are in direct control of whether or not this issue is brought out of a committee and eligible to be sent to the States for potential ratification. There is a Constitutional way to get around the Senate and the House from bringing up this issue, but the problem is that we as a nation haven’t done it in over 200 years. What I am referring to is a state’s ability to call a Constitutional Convention to propose and ratify an Amendment.

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.

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

James Madison states in Federalist 48 that “The legislative department is everywhere… drawing all power into its impetuous vortex”(Will). Congress corrupts with power and the only way to stop this is to impose term limits on the US Congress. Term limits are laws that keep one politician from being in Congress for too long. Term limits are on the rise with the public, but are hard to get accepted in Congress. Because of this, the last time a bill that proposed term limits was even voted on was on May 26, 1993. Many wonder why term limits were not originally put in the Constitution but term limits were not needed when the Constitution was written because most founding fathers were not career politicians, now many are career politicians and an amendment to the Constitution is needed. Term limits should be implemented in the United States Congress because they help prevent corruption, provide beneficial turnover in Congress, have public support, and, contrary to popular belief, they can be implemented easily.

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

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.

There is a lot of historical context that go into this amendment being passed. Socially, this amendment could lead to a number of great changes in the society we live in today. If members of Congress knew that their time was limited, not just limited by the threat of not being elected, but limited by a constitutional amendment, they would be more careful in enacting long term policies that normal citizens become the most affected by. They would have to be more careful because they would know that there would most definitely be a time in the future where they would be living under these new policies. The thought of living under their own policies will greatly affect which laws they vote on or propose themselves. Having limits on terms can also help encourage everyday citizens to run for

The Term Limits and the 1974 Budget Reform are the two reflections for week five. There has been a great debate concerning term limits. Term limits are considered to be the key point in rebuilding the relationship between the government and U. S. citizens. American citizens has lost faith in their government, because the citizens feel they are not represented, but the officials are focused on benefiting themselves. However, term limits can remove good leaders out, who may deserve to stay in office for a longer period of time. “As the authors states that “political bodies do not experience they need when there are limits on how long they can be in office. It also may keep qualified individuals from running for office” (Lee, Johnson and

This is of considerable significance due to the fact that Congress is a fundamental part of the United States government. And changing it, would lead to major changes in how our government functions. Limiting congressional terms might have some unforeseen complications. For example, some states have placed term limits on their state legislatures, and have found that newly elected legislators tend to be more partisan and ideological than their more seasoned colleagues. Long-serving lawmakers often become more understanding of the rival party and learn how to find workable compromises. While novice legislators, fresh from the campaign trail, often see the other party as an enemy. Which can greatly inhibit the coalition-building needed to pass budgets and meaningful laws. On the other hand, some people believe that term limits will

The two-year congressional term has both advantages and disadvantages. At two years, the congressional term is the shortest governmental term. This helps limit corruption in congress, with the power that comes with being a member of congress, a term of only two years it allows only a short exposure to power which prevents long term corruption in the government. On the other hand, those who have worked in a field longer allows them to be more experienced in their job and they can do a better job, so keeping the term limit to two years limits the chances of someone gaining more experience in their position and becoming better at it. With the frequent change in congressman it allows new people to come in and brings a fresh flow of ideas and prevents