Term Limits Of Congress : Congress

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

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.

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

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

In both the State and Federal legislature there is a need for term limits to better regulate the symposium and its outcomes.

Imposing Congressional term limits for the members of the congress would be a terrific idea. This is because if the Congress knows that their position in Congress is limited, they will get things done. Mark Levin, author of The Liberty Amendment stated that no person may serve more than 12 years as a member of congress. 12 years is enough for Congress to pass new laws. Now if the propose law has not been approved by the other members of the Congress by the time their term is over, then the next person that steps up can continue to pursue the law. No members should stay longer than they are supposed to. The term limit is necessary because there are other people in power that has been there for more than a decade. It's true that some of them

One reason for imposing term limits is that the average life expectancy of an American has more than doubled from when the Constitution was first written. Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their offices during

Federalist paper #71 justifies the duration of the President, it was written by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton defends the the constitution for a presidential term of four-years. Some people would say that having a President in term for that long would increase the risk of the President embracing too much power. The paper also talks about how the longer someone is in office, the more chances you have to make bold moves since your position is secure. If the term was cut shorter, the president would be less interested in the position and would most likely conclude with a term that is marked by “feebleness and irresolution” (Fed 71). But, Hamilton argues that a four year term will give the president the ability to pursue certain goals; which may in fact help the American people and their representatives who are in Congress. A president that is in term for four years will be able to go after what he thinks is the right thing to do, considering he has had 4 years of

Term limits for the Congress of the United States have been debated for quite some time. The debates were ignited after the court ruling on Inc. vs.

I oppose term limits of congress, because putting terms on congress you are taking our rights away. We live in a place where the government listens to us. It’s a free country, if we want he/she back so be it. American people can tell if they have a good congress or not so why fight to change it. A disadvantage

The Preamble of the United States Constitution states that, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I think that U.S. Senators and Representatives should have term limits. Since they do not have term limits they might take the power and use it to their advantage. If we did have term limits then things would be done wisely and quicker.

Our elected officials are sent to Washington to represent the people. In the case of the house they are there to represent the people of a certain district. Senators are supposed to represent citizens of a certain state. They currently have no limits on how long they can serve. There are many faces in Congress that have been there for over 20 years. I intend to explain why having the same people hold the same office is not healthy for the average American citizen. The original intent of the Constitution was to limit government and the self-serving interests that become tyrannical by their very nature. The fact that the founders did not include limiting terms for Congress appears to be a great oversight. The reason for this is simple. When a person was chosen to serve during the time of the founders it was considered both and honor and a burden. The founders overlooked term limits because at the time it was not an issue as it was not lucrative to be a member of Congress. Through devious legislation Congress has turned these offices of service into an institution that is above the very people it was designed to serve. It has become an institution that seeks power and allows corruption.

Having term limits would be an excellent idea because it would reduce medical issues that would impact the work of the Supreme Court. This is why many people support the idea of