Term Limit Analysis

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, 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.

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.

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.

At present, all federal judges have lifetime tenure; it has been this way since the drafting of the United States Constitution. Many contend that when the Constitution was drafted, the life expectancy then was less than half of what it is now in the 21st century. One of the major criterion for selection was the expectation that the candidate had a longer life expectancy. In other words, the candidate must “be young enough to serve for several decades.” By limiting the term of Supreme Court Justices to that of eighteen years, doing so would provide the potential for an increased sensibility to modern politics and life. If we were to continue to adhere to the verbiage of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, justices could continue to hold the position provided each exhibits good behavior. The question remains whether the pros would outweigh the cons of bringing new life and younger insight into the Court and would it tip the scales and force our legislators to apply term limits.

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.

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

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.

There are several arguments that speak for Congressional term limits. To begin with, term limits were contained in America’s first governing document, the Articles of Confederation. Back then in the eighteenth century this tool was chosen by the founding fathers to avoid long-term political careerism and the abuse of the power legislators hold. Following this statement it becomes clear that term limits are needed at all levels of government, however it is especially vital to apply them to Congress for numerous reasons, some of them being large electoral advantages exercised by

the U.S. Congress to term limits. There are many ways in which this could occur,

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.

Another extremely important revision that can be made to the Constitution are changes to the Electoral College: to mend it, not end it. If the Electoral College was ended, the presidential election would be based on a majority vote, meaning that the presidents would only campaign in “large populated cities in order to get a larger majority” (Sabato 138). This would effect the

I really hate when others take my right to decide when my elected representatives can no longer represent me. Term limits take that choice away from voters. We already have term limits, it's called a ballot. The majority of voters either really like the person representing them or are too lazy to exercise that very powerful means of limiting how long someone represents them. With all the support many voters give to term limits, it is simply a sign that voters don't want to be bothered with voting responsibly. This type of voter would rather a law be passed to take over that responsibility.

The longer the term the president obtains the more confidence he builds, which he can use to challenge the legislature when he feels it is necessary. Although a shorter term would protect against overly ambitious presidents, the four year term was chosen. The four year term would ensure liberty, authority and security to all. Therefore this paper sides with the four year term and no shorter than