Political Term Limits Term limits are a powerful political force and political reform. Throughout the establishment of the United States government, term limits have provided the American citizens the ability to regulate executive power. Many American citizens approve of the idea of term limits for Congressmen, along with many states and hundreds of cities and counties across the United States, yet the application of term limits of those in Congress has yet to be set. On the contrary, however, some state and local governments have adopted term limits for officials. This active and swift spread of support demonstrates that the public is not satisfied with the efforts of their prevalent careerism and think that adding amendments to the federal legislator would benefit Congress and the nation as …show more content…
That’s why we keep them there because we don’t want to have to train someone new every so many years. You have to think about the other side, though: these politicians stay in Congress for so long that they have no deadline to see their plans and ideas come into action; they have no motivation. We elect these people in hopes that they will change the way things are at that moment and we wait on these changes to happen while they just sit there are earn money for not doing anything. They make careers out of doing nothing and helping no one. Congressional term limits show a lot of benefit to our nation’s governmental system. It allows more people to share ideas and spread diversity. It limits the amount of corruption and bribery that goes on within the system. Of course there are reasons that counter why term limits should be an options but they aren’t anything that can’t be worked on and easily fixed. Term limits is something that needs to be deeply considered by our nation’s people if they want to see the change every politician is talking
It is not uncommon to find members of Congress who have genuine goals of spearheading, designing or even just supporting good public policy. It would be harsh to say that every member of Congress is against good policy. However what is difficult for members of Congress is deciding what is more important, the wishes of their constituents or national policy. Although it is rare, members of Congress vote against the popular opinion of his or her district in order to make what would be considered good policy in the national interest. This hinders their chance of re-election but is necessary for America. In very rare cases members of Congress have gone against the wishes of their constituents for moral reasons like in the aftermath of 9/11. When voting on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, I am certain that the last thing of the minds of members of Congress was re-election. A very conservative House of Representatives member Jimmy Duncan said ‘‘when I pushed that button to vote against the war back in 2002, I thought I might be ending my political career.” In times of crisis members of Congress have decide between what is right, not what their constituents believe is right. Another goal other than re-election that members of Congress have is their own future. For many, being a members of The House of Representatives is a mere stepping stone in their career on the way to better things. Therefore for some members of Congress, re-election does not worry them and gives them the freedom to act in an environment striped of the constant pressure of re-election. However, considering that most of the members of The House Of Representatives goals lie within the Senate or high executive positions, re-election is still on their mind, all be it in the form of a different
Despite the overwhelming critics, Texas remains one of several states that keep supporting the concept of partisan judicial elections, where voters cast a straight-ticket vote. In fact, electing judges by the public leads to a number of ethical problems which necessarily require compromise between judicial integrity and independence. Most of the allegations of wrong-doing have caused a number of professional and citizen groups to become disaffected with the existing system.
Presidential power has become a hot topic in the media the in recent years. There has been extensive debate about what a president should be able to do, especially without the involvement of Congress and the American people. While this debate has become more publicized since the Bush administration, similar issues of presidential power date back to Truman and the Korean War. As with much of the structure of the U.S. government, the powers of the president are constantly evolving with the times and the executives.
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.
Karp, explores the origin and reasons for the demand on term limits. Karp’s claim over the origin of congressional term limits was made evident in the line “Support for term limits is related to cynicism and, to some extent, self-interest” (Karp, 1995, pg. 373). It is made evident that Karp himself, believes the public only wants to enact term limits for his or her benefits. Karp’s article is well organized because he uses transitional phrases and subtitles to guide the readers through the article. In the beginning, Karp slowly eases the reader into the mind of the general public to understand how and why the public wants legislative limits. The author, Karp, then provides factual evidence via logistics to further prove his point. The organization used throughout the article allowed Karp to answer the question he set out to answer. This reviewer mostly agrees with the author’s claim that the intentions of the public are cynical and revolve around self- interest. The author is not wrong with the self-interest because if the laws passed by the legislators affect the people directly, the people would like to have a say. On the other hand, this reviewer does not agree that the demand for congressional term limits is
Therefore, the period of service should “bear some proportion to the extent of practical knowledge requisite to the due performance of the service.” (Federalist 53, 77) He also foresaw that some outstanding legislators might be re-elected and would become “masters of public business” (Federalist 53, 72). As now-a-days the re-election rate for members of Congress exceeds 90%, it seems that Madison’s theory of democracy is in contradiction with the present situation where the political elite minority rules over people. And as Mayhew points that politicians are only motivated by the rewards of office (income, prestige, and power), thus they seek re-elections to hold on to these rewards rather than to promote ephemeral “good public policy.” (Mayhew, 16) But whatever stimulates the politician; frequent elections uphold the democratic principle of the accountability of politicians before the people. The quest for re-election makes a congressman to engage in activities related to re-election, such as advertising of his qualities as a politician to promote public policies, claiming credit for influencing certain legislature, and taking a position on current issues.
In Lee Hamilton’s article entitled The Case for Congress, Hamilton analyzes the criticisms Congress often receives from Citizens of the United States. He points out the negative traits that are often associated with those serving in Congress such as personal scandals, immoral lobbying, and greed. In reality, Hamilton expresses, congressmen are not the monsters that the media oftentimes portrays them to be. This article is not justifying all acts carried out by Congress, but simply identifies positive things that the men and women serving in the United States Congress do in order to help their constituents.
Some are the Pros and cons: Limits the corruption and influence obtained by being a member of Congress. Allows them to get to complacent, by doing just an average job. Term limits kick out the great officials who may should remain in office for brilliant work. In this field learning and adapting is key, and Congress is no exemption. Lawmakers that leave office take with them a ton of experience and contacts that are fundamental to complete things. New officials would need to build up these up from almost nothing. Bringing new ideas perhaps to fix a problem that has been happening for many years. Thinking out of the box, instead of the same old ideas. New individuals will probably think of brand new ideas and think out of the box. The longer you practice something, the better you should get at it. Indeed, term limits would wipe out a portion of the degenerate, control eager and incapable and unfit officials, yet it would likely dispose of all the decent and efficient ones. Earning the people’s trust and proving themselves to be competent
Our country’s founding Fathers never intended politics to become a lifetime career for any individual. Everyday citizens, who knew first hand our problems, would serve Congress for certain amount of time. When their time was up, they would return to their communities and live under the laws they agreed upon. Today, the term Career Politician is used to describe what happens in Congress. There are no boundaries that say a member of Congress can only serve a certain amount of terms. Congress members stay in office for years because of the pay increases, health benefits, and the overwhelming power. Today’s Generation believes that Members of the House should be limited to three two year terms and Senators limited to two six year terms.
Eliminating the lifetime tenure for federal judges to a 15-year term that is not renewed would be beneficial to the US Constitution. When judges are selected they are used for tactical behaviors that Presidents and justices have used. When the President appoints younger people they do this to capitalize on their capability to sway the Supreme Court. When Clarence Thomas was appointed he was 43, and John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801 by John Adams. Republicans average age for appointees is about 50, Anthony Kennedy was the last one nominated in 1988 at the age of 51, whereas 56.5 is the average age for Democrats, and Arthur Goldberg joined the Supreme Court in 1962 at the age of 54.
Term-Limits for Congress are another internal factor that influences congressional policy-making decisions. The debate over the need for term limit policies for Congress to be restructured is an ongoing battle. Presently, unlike the president that is restricted to two terms, there is no limit to the
Even though Sabato’s claim that presidents are appointing younger inexperienced judges to the Supreme Court appears to be incorrect, the remaining fact that the tenure length of judges is increasing is more than enough to prove the need for fixed terms for judges. The table clearly proves Sabatos idea that after 1970 the average tenure length for judges has increased, while it might not as drastic as 25 years, 20 years is still long enough to question if justices can preside over court to the best of their ability for so long. If the average appointment age is 57 and the average tenure length is 19 years then that means the average judge leaves the court at age 76. This is disturbing because the National Institute of Health, National Center for Biotechnology Information, and US National Library of Medicine all say that most decline in cognitive functionality happens after sixty. Meaning justices that were appointed at age 57 and decide to stay on the bench for 25 years are just ticking timebombs, waiting to lose all sense of reason and consequence while in the middle of a case. The table also proves Sabatos other point about judges being too far out of reach from the public's opinion when the average justice serves for 20 years. If twenty years marks the beginning of a new generation and a new set of norms and standards
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
Allowing congress to continuously get reelected, removes them from the real world. As many of them get elected when they are young, and remain in congress for a very long time. Enforcing term limits can help to keep politicians grounded. "With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves."(Weeks) Having term limits in place influences congress to make good choices, as they will have to abide by the laws they created, once they are done in office. "Ensuring that Members eventually are exposed to life outside of Congress should inculcate a more sophisticated understanding of the logic and the limits of federal
Campaign finance is a system that allows people or large companies to donate money in order to finance candidates, political parties and policies. This money goes towards promoting those candidates and their parties in the election. There are many campaign finance groups you can donate your money to. Some are private and your name is not associated with the money, while other groups are not private when you donate money, anyone can know who you are and who you are donating your money to.