Supreme Court Justices Should Have 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

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.

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.

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

I strongly believe that Congress should have term limits. Currently, members of the House of Representatives can serve two-terms. These two terms equal six years. In a previous post, I discussed how the amendments should not be allowed to be changed with ease and the two term rule falls under the 22Nd amendment. If this amendment changed, it would allow a president to serve more than six years and that is way too much. Every president has a different idea of how they want the country ran and sometimes those ideas are not always the best. With the two term rule, a new president can come in and try their

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

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.

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

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.

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.

The rest of Article III, Section I points to how judges can serve stating, “shall hold Offices during good behavior.” The good behavior portion of the statement is constitutionally recognized that judges may serve to the end of their life time or leave office voluntarily. Over time the meaning of life time has expanded and become the center of the controversy surrounding the extent of service. The framers of the constitution found life tenure appropriate for the justices of the Supreme Court as an expression of their importance to the government, but also that the loss of their cognitive ability was an imaginary farce.

When the Supreme Court was created by the founders, they did not specify term limits. In article III section I, it states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” In this excerpt of the Constitution the wording is very vague. The founders did not anticipate the judges not wanting to step down for the benefit of the country. This 28th amendment sets clear term limits for the Supreme Court Justices. Since the inception of the Supreme Court, most Justices have tried their

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