Why Congress Should Have Term Limits

would limit themselves to one or two terms and then return to private life (1).

Many people think that with term limits we would lose experience, maturity, and knowledge of the workings of Congress. However, this is not correct. The workings of Congress need not be nearly so complex as careerists would have us think. However, great pains have been exerted to give us that impression. A term-limited Congress could get the nation's business accomplished in a fraction of the time that it takes now, with all the posturing, posing, ego trips and headline-grabbing. And a term-limited Congress could streamline all the procedures. As for experience we would be better off without some of it. What is needed is experience in the real world life experiences from new blood, with fresh ideas. With term limits, congressional staff people would gain control, is another widely used argument against term limits. The fallacy of that argument is that the staff people already have control. Through the years, Congress has abdicated it to them. Committee staffs write the legislation, and members' staffs read it, then tell members what's in it. Members themselves rarely read what they vote on. In a country where ignorance of the law is no excuse, members of Congress are often ignorant of many of the provisions of laws they vote on. Congress and its members could regain control from the staffs right now, if they had the will. They don't have the will. A term limited Congress that had the will could get control of the staffs in a very short period of

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

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

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.

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

First, congress salaries are very heavily bashed on by the public. An average congress member attains a salary just shy of $100,000. Many members of congress start off making roughly $80,000-$90,000 annually. Therefore, an abundance of people argue that their salary is too high. Although they have a decent salary to sit on, they aren’t overly wealthy. In contrast, members may work their way up in power, yet don’t generate much of a raise other than a few thousand annually. Back when the constitution was being formed, many of our nation’s top builders predicted a president leading the USA. Granted the president description was extremely vague, we soon realized how powerful presidency and high powers truly are. After several presidencies and wars, among other awry events, we quickly discovered the roles and objectives of these political leaders. Furthermore, the role of presidency has been altered greatly over the course of time. The separation of power ultimately led to the creation of a two-party system. Lastly, the issue of re-election arises. Re-election rates have generated a fair amount of complaints among American’s. The idea of limiting terms for congress members has become a common thought. If this followed through, it may generate mixed feelings for our country. Everybody has different stances on our nation’s higher powers, but perception is critical, depending on the

If the Supreme Court Justices were subjected to term limits there confirmation hearings would be not as brutal. The Senate would know the appointee

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.

In this paper, I will argue that the United States president should not be limited to two terms in office. The rational for two terms has been to prevent abuse of power. My argument is based on the benefits of unlimited presidential terms and the hindrance of limited terms on the United States’ economy.

When the founding fathers proposed the judiciary branch, they wanted it to not only handle disputes but to play a key role in the system of checks and balances. They didn’t explicitly layout a system of judicial review. Judicial review came about through the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which had the impact of making the Supreme Court a major law making body and not just a judicial agency. With this additional power given to the Supreme many individuals feel that over the past few centuries, the power of the Supreme Court has become too great and that 18-year term limits should be placed upon the Supreme Court justices. However, I disagree with the idea of term-limits. Term limits for Supreme Court justices should not be put into place

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

It is no secret that Americans are disappointed with the current political machine that is running the country. This dislike was illustrated in a 2013 Gallup Poll. The poll discovered that only sixteen percent of Americans were happy with Congress. When American citizens are asked what solution they think would solve this problem, most respond, “Term limits” (Gallup)  In fact, eighty percent of Americans support the concept (Cato).

A six year term limit could drastically decrease issues on both sides as politics could improve and not focus on unnecessary reelection issues and Congress will not have to press the president or wait the president out. Not only would it solve current issues, but it could reverse the two term limit that affected the country and politics. Jonathan Zimmerman, a contributor for The Washington Post, informs that, “When they succeeded in limiting the presidency to two terms, they limited democracy itself” (Zimmerman, 2013). Zimmerman explains that the two term limit has affected a principle that should not be taken away and presidents should be allowed to serve a longer term. The discussion for ending the term limit set by congress have been brought up multiple times throughout the years as well and modifying the term limit could be a reasonable solution. Scott Bomboy, an editor for Constitution Center explains how some members of congress have attempted to abolish the 22nd

I believe that term limits are good, when a person wants to create a legacy and have an impact on society with the things that they believe or even the polices that better people, I believe they know that there is only a certain amount of time in which to do that so they generally get to work, so that the time that they served as well as things they help to