Term Limit Essay

For over two decades, citizens of the United States of America have had strong feelings on the subject of congressional term limits- more specifically, the imposition of term limits on Supreme Court Justices as well as the restriction on judicial review. This controversial issue has been further publicized due to the more recent publication of Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public. Levin, a talk show host, makes his term limit case in his book about several amendments that have been attempted in the past.

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

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.

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.

As a remedy to the issues in Congress, term limits should be implemented in the US Congress because they can prevent corruption and provide turnover in Congress. Throughout the years, working as a Congressman has become

If Congress should have term limits or not has been a long debated question that is suggested as an amendment to the qualifications division of the Constitution. There are outstanding arguments on both side of the issue 5; unconstitutionality versus limiting power and mixture versus seniority are just a few. Term limits are requirement to upload the founder’s objectives, to inhibit unfair advantages given to resident, and to permit an assembly of additional benefits. Opponents of term limits have said in today’s world we need men and women to represent them in congress and term limits which will remove legislators when the start to become useful to constituents.

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

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,

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

14. The first limitation of Source O in regards to the purpose is that it is trying to persuade people to believe what he believes in: segregation. The fact that he’s trying to use persuasion doesn’t give the historian all of the sides and perspectives to the story. Therefore, the historian won’t be able to successfully establish what they really believe because only one perspective is being thrown at them. Another limitation of Source O in regards to origin is that the author, Tom Brady, is a leader of the pro-segregation White Citizens’ Council, which demonstrates that he is in an organization with a very narrow-minded and one-sided viewpoint. This most likely means that he does too; after all, he is a leader of it. By this, the historian,

Professor Larry Sabato is the founder of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia presents 23 proposals to revitalize our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country. His book provides insight for a hard fought debate. Whether you like his suggestions or not or you agree with him or not, you have to respect anyone that can outwardly state that the United States Constitution as it has been handed down is “outdated.” This quest for reform I’m sure would anger many political conservatives who believe that the Constitution that we know today, is not in need of any reform, and is just the true document that is has always been and should remain.