Term Limits Should Not Be Beneficial

Until 1951, there was no law restricting the number of times the president of the United States could run for office. After the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment. Since its ratification, the highly controversial amendment has survived every attempted repeal. Contemporary presidents of both parties, President Regan and President Clinton, supported repealing or modifying the amendment whereas other presidents believed a repeal would result in political stagnation. While there are certain benefits of restricted term limits, the otherwise undemocratic 22nd Amendment should be repealed.

Based on the way that the President’s office was created, the makeup of the Congress can present a challenge or an

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.

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

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.

A term limit is made prevents government officials from serving for more than a specified number of terms. The

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

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.

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.

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.

Term Limits, expresses their legal push to help establish term limits for all members of Congress, including Supreme Court Justices. He starts out by talking about an old Supreme Court case called U.S. Term Limits V. Thornton. This was a 1995 Supreme Court case where the court ruled on whether or not states could impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens are not allowed to place term limits on their own members of Congress using state laws. Tomboulides emphasizes a specific statement in the dissent of this case that he believes will help their cause in the future. It states, “State imposition of term limits for congressional service would effect such a fundamental change in the constitutional framework that it must come through a constitutional amendment properly passed under the precedes set forth in Article V.” Currently, the U.S. Term Limits is pursuing a proposition to establish a constitutional amendment that places term limits on all members of Congress, including Supreme Court Justices. This is very similar to the proposal issued by Calabresi and Lindgren’s in their

By having a term limit on Congress, there will be a wider age range. This will lead to more “21st century” views. I feel that this is crucial when trying to keep the American political system up to date with society and its continuous changes. Compared to most democratic European countries, America has very few women in Congress. Less than 20% of Congress members are women.

Term limits will be instituted on U.S. Supreme Court Justices in order to better reflect the intentions of the Founder Fathers, to adapt to a changing society, and to end the problem of cognitive impairment due to age related decline. The Constitution, as written by the Founding Fathers, limits absolute power and is based on a system of checks and balances. They considered it improper for any one individual to wield vast power for long periods of time. Life tenure meant serving about ten years because life expectancy was about 60 years.

It was passed by Congress in 1947 on March 21 and was ratified on Feb. 27, 1951 almost four years later. Not too long ago, many presidents had actually considered running for more than two terms. Ulysses. Grant, Grover Cleveland, and Theodore Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to and only Franklin Roosevelt succeeded. He won a third and fourth term. A few years later, Congress took into consideration a proposal to limit presidency to two terms. The 22nd amendment was debated, passed, and ratified without much drama. I would change this amendment because with proper background searches, voting, and careful consideration I think it’d be very wise to have the availability to keep a president in office for more than two terms if citizens agree to it. I think that there should be a limit but not at exactly two terms. I believe that it should be up to the people voting to decide who is president and for how long they want to keep that person their president, especially if they’re doing well in office. You can find the amendment process in the two ways that amendments are proposed. Amendments can be proposed by Congress if at least 2/3 of the members of both the House of Representatives (290) and the senate (67) vote for it. Step 1 in amending the constitution is that two-thirds of both houses of Congress pass a constitutional amendment. This sends the amendment to the states for ratification. Three-fourths of