Term Limits Should Not Be Beneficial

1859 Words8 Pages
Debate Paper

Putting limits on the amount of terms a member of Congress can serve is a highly debated issue. Many people are against term limits. They argue that term limits are unconstitutional and that they infringe on the rights of the American people to choose who they want to represent their states. However, many people also argue that term limits would be beneficial. Term limits would be beneficial because it would put an end to career politicians, give new people a chance to solve the nation’s problems, and limit corruption.

The founding fathers left nothing about term limits for any political office in the Constitution. George Washington set the precedent for term limits when he retired after two terms in office. Most presidents after him also stopped running after two terms. Franklin Roosevelt was the only president with more than two terms. He ran and was elected four times, though he died in the beginning of his fourth term. After his four terms, the twenty second amendment was passed in 1951. The amendment says that no one should be elected to office more than twice. In 1995, the idea of term limits in Congress was brought to the United States Supreme Court. An article in the Arkansas constitution denied ballot access to any candidate who had already served three terms in the United States Congress. In a case INC versus Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to impose restrictions on term limits. While states
Get Access