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 allow a multitude of additional benefits. Initially, the Founders intended to have a limit on the amount of time any one person could serve. In the Articles of Confederation, a rotation in office system was described, so that no one person could remain in a position for decades on end. However, this was abandoned in the Constitution because it was deemed unnecessary. At the time of the nation’s founding, the occupation of “politician” did not exist. One could hold an office for a number of years, but it was not considered a career path. Originally, politicians were seen as making great sacrifices, because they stepped away from their family and primary jobs for a number of years to serve their country, before returning to their normal lives (Vance, 1994, p. 429). In the words of Founding Father Roger Sherman, “The representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of the government, they will acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those... ... middle of paper ... ... crack due to career politicians disregarding the governmental system created by the Founders. Works Cited CRS Rep., 104th Cong., 1-2 (1997). CRS Rep., 106th Cong., 3-5 (2000). Kurfirst, R. (1996). Term-limit logic: paradigms and paradoxes. Polity, 29.1, 119-140. Madison, J. (1788, Feb. 19). The Federalist no. 57: The alleged tendency of the new plan to elevate the few at the expense of the many considered in connection with representation. New York Packet. Retrieved from http://constitution.org/fed/federa57.htm U.S. Const., art. I, § 2. Vance, D.A. (1994). State-imposed congressional term limits: what would the Founders of the Constitution say?. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1994, 429. Weissert, C., & Halperin, K. (2007). The paradox of term limit support: to know them is not to love them. Political Research Quarterly, 60.3, 516-517.
By giving life tenure to appointed officials, the founding fathers protected them from political pressure. But, by taking away the accountability of these officials, the framers actually produced a perfect opportunity for krytocracy, a government ruled by judges. When a justice, or anyone for that matter, is secured with a job for life, there is not enough incentive motivating him to perform to the best of his ability. If the lifelong term was changed to say, 8 or 12 years, the justices would be more likely to keep the people’s interests in mind and to represent the public instead of being driven by their own selfish concerns. If the judges’ terms were limited, it would allow their actions to be reviewed, analyzed and determined right or wrong by the people. It would kee...
Publius. "The Federalist No. 10." The Constitutional Society. October 21, 2013. Accessed February 24, 2014. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.html.
Since the beginning of the government, people gained and lost their jobs whenever a new president took office. These jobs were political pay-offs for people who supported them. Many people did not take their jobs too seriously because they knew they would be out of their office soon. As Henry Clay put it, government officials after an election are "like the inhabitants of Cairo when the plague breaks out; no one knows who is next to encounter the stroke of death." Over the years the flaws that were made and the problems that resulted became more obvious. After an election you could open a newspaper and find many advertisements, which offered government jobs that were filled before the election.
In conclusion, Congressional representatives should be limited to serving two terms. Limiting the terms of career politicians will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. It is in our Country’s best interest that our legislator’s decisions are equitable and that compromises are not made to ensure their own or their parties stay in office.
One important reason Americans want to limit terms of their elected representatives is because they are likely to blame what they observe as professional and almost permanent ruling elect of career politicians for a majority of the country’s ill. Supporters of term limits claim the advantages of incumbency are so overpowering that they instead decrease representative democracy and diminish the effectiveness of the government. “Since 1950, about 90% of all incumbents in the House have won the reelection. The 10% who do not return includes both retiring members and those defeated in reelection attempts.” (Term Limits) “Proponents term limits argue that elected officials in Washington eventually become estrang...
It was John Adams who noted that "men in general, in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also little too acquainted with public affairs for a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own."1 This shared attitude guided the Founding Fathers in their establishment of what has become America's modern day political system. When today's modern day student is asked just what sort of system that was, it seems the answer is always "democracy." In reality, the House of Representatives is the nearest idea in accordance with a system of democracy that this country would ever reach.2 Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were the wealth and success of their time, and coincidentally, it was these same men that fashioned a structure in which wealth and success were the ultimate judges of where power was to fall. The Founding Fathers did not seek democratic reform, but rather sought personal gain in the form of ultimate power.
Upon first examination, the idea of implementing term limits in Congress is appealing. In fact, the idea of term limits was initially discussed by our founders, though it was eventually decided that it should not be included in the Constitution (Newton-Small, 2010). The reasons for considering term limits have remained consistent since the beginning of the country, however, and include ensuring legislative turnover, limiting the abuse of the power of seniority, and decreasing the advantages given to incumbents in the campaign process. Interestingly, the states that have adopted term limits have not seen the expected positive outcomes, nor have the opponents seen the dire results that had been predicted. Upon further investigation, the case for term limits is strong as long as it is a nationally based initiative in order to create uniformity and the limits are long enough to increase competence in the job and head off short-term thinking, however without increased voter involvement, no reform will solve the current concerns with Congress.
The Founding Fathers who composed the Constitution did, actually, consider and dismiss the possibility of congressional term limits. In Federalist Papers No. 53, James Madison, father of the
During the Republican period political power was one of the most important things to have. A man who had senatorial rank would spend his whole life planning, negotiating, attracting supporters, and dispensing favors. (Shelton 1988) This was all part of the political camp...
One of the major issues that opponents of term limits have argued is that term limits are undemocratic. They insist that voters in a democratic society such as ours have the right to vote for whomever they wish. However, this entire line of reasoning is flawed. As the Supreme Court determined in Clements v. Fashing, “Candidacy is not a ‘fundamental right’,” meaning that not every person is eligible to run for public office. There are already limits on candidacy, such as age restrictions and residency requirements, that impede the people’s ability to vote for whomever they want. If these qualifications are not undemocratic, an additional qualification such as term limits cannot be considered undemocratic solely because of its limitations on
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
Elected officials often hold their position for an extensive duration of time. The founding fathers placed a length of time before the terms of senators, representatives, and executives are expired and need to be reelected in the Constitution, and the twenty-second amendment placed term limits on the United States president. Why ought to other elected officials have term limits?
Congressional term limits of two, four year terms must be imposed for the U.S to be a healthy democracy. Incumbency advantage enables politicians to spread the same ideas for long years. For instance, Senator John McCain has been reelected to the U.S Senate five times, from 1986 to 2016. Term limits will ensure urgency in getting important legislation passed. Moreover, senators will get one shot to fulfill their constituents wishes and get elected.
The House of Representatives voted 227-204 in favor of an amendment that would limit its own terms, in 1995. Unfortunately, even though the bill was able to get majority it did not get the 2/3 vote it needed, but it is a start. By knowing that this amendment could actually go through, voters can worry about other aspects of the legislation. The proposed term limits should not be any shorter than 10 years, as mentioned above this job has a learning curve, by allowing members to stay on for 10 or more years they would feel that they have enough time to get what they want done without the added benefit of staying indefinitely. The legislation would not go into effect immediacy, that is people who have been their past the term limit would not be automatically kicked out. The election cycle would still go on as planes, luckily voting for congress is in waves, so we do not replace every member at once. This gives the added benefit of allowing new members to spend time with experienced members and making sure the congress is not filled with inexperienced
The longest serving member of Congress is Robert C. Byrd. He joined on January 3, 1959 and left office on June 28, 2010, he is the longest serving member of congress for serving 51 years 5 months and 26 days. He is one of many who have served over 25 years in Congress. The president has a term limit because we don’t want the same person to be able to control the United States because then nothing will change and we will only get the views of that one person. But in Congress you are allowed to run as many times as you want and if you keep winning you can stay in for life. I feel like Congress should have term limits.