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 …show more content…
Pork-barrel spending, special interest of their own state, and how can they make themselves look good are thing that will be on their mind at some point. Setting term limits would allow Congress to become more of a “citizen” Congress because more everyday people, not just the wealthy, would be running for office (balancedpolitics.org). New Politian’s would not have time to find loop holes or exploit the system because they would be focusing on what they need to get done in order to make their constituents happy. One of the major benefits to term limits is the potential for new ideas rolling through Congress, and Politian’s with a more focused mind set. The founding fathers did their part of making sure no one person is given too much power by ensuring that the United States has checks and balances. The 22nd Amendment has contributed to the checks and balances by limiting presidents to two terms in office. Term limits should also be in place for congressional members. This may be another way to ensure no congressional member ever has too much power within the government. Candidates would be running for the purpose to the serve people and not to just benefit themselves. Term limits would also stop the political reward and power abuse within Congress, leading to committees being assigned to individuals based on merit and their expertise to make informed decisions. Doing all
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.
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
There has been four major law change that affect the way that california is the way today.The first of the four changes is term limits, they change this rule so that there would be no more career politician , but that not the case. In the old rule term limits rules you were allowed to be in the senate for 6 terms and in the assembly for 3 term. Now the term limits you get 12 terms not matter where you are. This new system bring in a lot of advantage, and little disadvantage but there is always false in every system. The advantage to is that it helps to bring in new idea and people that can see thing different. But there also a disadvantage to this by bring in new blood ,we are taking about the season professional that know what they are
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.
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
Also, how could we protect one aspect of the current system that we have in place so we never have all freshman Senators and Representatives in office. The danger would potentially lead to them possibly be persuaded into corruption by outside influences.
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
What then would be the benefit of limiting the term of a Supreme Court Justice? The reasoning for the limitation begins with the level of contention that becomes present in the United States Senate when a vacancy evolves. For the purpose of enlightenment, we can reflect back to the
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 U.S. Congress to term limits. There are many ways in which this could occur,
If the Supreme Court Justices were subjected to term limits there confirmation hearings would be not as brutal. The Senate would know the appointee
Having term limits would be good because there would be a definite change every so many years. If the people did not like what was going on then they would know that as soon as the term was over they could be replaced.
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.