The Pros And Cons Of Term Limits

Fears of a strong federal government encompass many Americans’ minds because of concern that a monarchy will, once again, control them like it once did under British rule. The Constitution, although a

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

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 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.

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.

Upon considering whether the Constitution in its current form should be ratified, four main points of consideration come into focus: the four main arguments determining the future for the United States and its people. Under the current form of government, the Articles of Confederation, a question of whether a stronger central government is needed is asked. This question is followed by if the United States would be more prosperous under a confederation of loosely governed states, and if a powerful national government consolidates the states. Next, the question of whether the Constitution provides a fair, honest system of representation for all classes of people, and finally, whether the document supports natural and

The government that our country operates under in modern times is quite different than the government in place at our country’s conception. However, they do share many of the same practices and ideologies. The Articles of Confederation were founded on the basis of a very limited national government, and the idea that states should interact with each other through a “loose league of friendship”. In this friendship, the states would work and trade together, but no form of central government was needed. This system was not nearly sufficient for the nations problems at the time. Recognizing the need for a reform, the nations leaders tried to reform the current system, and with little success, the decision was made that they should start

The arguments made by Federalists and anti-Federalists regarding the office and powers of the presidency during the ratifying debates that followed the drafting of the Constitution in 1787 were persuasive, but distinctly at odds. Both sides, however, sought the same thing, how best to allocate power in a unified republic of states? From this question opposing views developed as to whether or not a President should even exist, and if so, what powers he should be granted. I will briefly examine the presidential powers that were primarily awarded under Article II of the new Constitution. I will then explore the opposing arguments that arose during the ratifying debates concerning those granted powers. I do so in the interest of offering a

The founding fathers of the United States Constitution wrote it to be a national law to the whole country; however, research has shown that the founding fathers have stated on several occasions that the Constitution should be revised from time to time in order to better suite the current time period. In “A More Perfect Constitution,” Larry Sabato discusses twenty-three new proposals and revisions that would benefit today’s government. Given these facts, it is a necessary development as America begins the 21st century to call together a constitutional convention in order to discuss Sabato’s new proposals to the Constitution. There are three major revisions that will most benefit the national

After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the United States Government was reorganized under the Constitution. This gave the federal government far more power than did the Articles of Confederation, which invested power within the states. Basically, the Constitution created three branches of government (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative) which would work together to run the government. To make sure that there was an equal balance of power among the branches, a system of checks and balances was devised so that each branch could limit the power of the others. It is important to note that "the doctrine of separation of powers is not established by any constitutional provision [but] rather it emerges from he framers'

In the initial years of the United States a meeting of delegates appointed by the several states met for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. The result of this meeting was the creation of the U.S. Constitution that would soon become the ultimate directive for both Federal and State Governments. Since its birth it has been revised, amended, and ratified in order to solidify the allocation of power between the separate branches of government. Although this may be the case, distribution of the powers has been disputed ever since the formation of the Constitution. These political, legal, and quasi-legal constitutional disputes triggered civil unrest and led to explicit acts of opposition involving nullification and

Federalism was an inevitable and paramount mechanism to creation the of the Union. Therefore, it is acceptable that its governing principles would define and refine a majority of the nation’s history. Shaping the government, laws, and politics of the current and future generations during the creation of the Constitution, federalism permanently altered the life of every American. Federalism and the Constitution were derived from a similar ideal: endurance of free society had to be preserved by a sense of unity that acted as a safeguard against prevalent dangers, advanced the common good while still maintaining responsiveness to the diversity of the nation (Wechsler, 1954). The Constitution established a central government that possessed the capacity to interpret its

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions

Any nationwide endeavor across the world over is always faced with a myriad of challenges when one factor in, the interest of different individuals or groups. During the early years of the USA, there were many problems that politicians at the time faced when trying to create and strengthen the country’s Constitution. In the early 1780’s the young country was in a deep depression, and this played a key role in influencing the exercise as it ultimately led to a heated debate about the powers of the National and State governments. Most of the conservative politicians at the time preferred a stronger federal government while state radicals believed that states should have more power since it was in a better position to determine what was best for their citizens (Jilson, 2009). More sticking points divided the founding fathers which threatened the stability and establishment of the USA, such as slavery and federalism.