The case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton in 1955 declared congressional term limits unconstitutional because there is no amendment allowing them. The debate over term limits did not end with this ruling, even today the majority of the public supports term limits. On one side of the argument, the public believes that a member of Congress must have a limit to how long they can serve. On the other side, the public argues that term limits are not necessary. According to the 1995 Supreme Court decision, term limits can only exist if there is a constitutional amendment passed that requires the limits. For this to happen, members of Congress would have to agree to their future removal from the House or Senate. The public’s argument has been …show more content…
called useless because it is unlikely that Congressmen would pass an amendment to abruptly end their careers. With the help of the authors Jeffery Karp and Steven Stark, this reviewer will develop an opinion over term limits. This reviewer will decide whether the United States should pass a constitutional amendment enforcing term limits and if this amendment will make America more dependent or independent. In the article “Explaining Public Support For Legislative Term Limits,” by Jeffery A.
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 …show more content…
cynical. There is a major bias in Karp’s article because he only debates his opinion on the subject.
This is biased because instead of including information that would allow the reader to form their own opinion, Karp forces his beliefs onto the reader. The information in the article derives from other authors who share the same opinion as Karp and an analysis of surveys. The surveys used in the article were conducted by the American National Election Study, Florida State University Survey Research Center, and the University of Wyoming Survey Research Center. This reviewer would like to make a few recommendations to Karp for his article. First, this reviewer recommends that Karp discuss the general public’s opinion on term limits because the different group’s opinion confused this reviewer. The other recommendation this reviewer has for the author is that he explain the survey data before including it in the article. In other words, Karp should analyze the data before attaching it to the article to ensure that the reader understands the information the data provides. Karp’s article is this reviewer’s least favorite article because the data included was
confusing. Steven Stark, the author of “Too Representative Government”, explores the relationship between the increased representation of Congress and their disapproval ratings. Stark claims that the result of appropriate representation in Congress leads to unpopularity because Congress has only resolved small issues. The authors claim is best demonstrated in the line “it has tried to solve more and more problems-thus raising expectations and frequently disappointing them” (Stark, 1995, pg. 92). Stark’s article is very well organized and extremely well written. Stark did an excellent job of using transitions and new titles in order to make the article flow better. However, despite Stark’s exceptional writing, he used vocabulary too complex for the average reader such as “referenda, constituency, exacerbated, and egalitarian” (Ibid.). This reviewer does not agree with the author’s claim because Stark believes the people actually represented are the problem. This reviewer, on the other hand, believes the members of Congress, not the American people, are to blame and the reason important issues have not been solved. Throughout Stark’s article, it is clear to the reviewer that Stark is biased over this issue. The author, Stark, repeatedly held represented citizens accountable for the unpopularity facing Congress today. Never in the article did Stark even consider another possible explanation to the dislike of Congress. The author provided extensive evidence to support only his claim. He uses past Congressional action and quotes to strengthen his argument and therefore his beliefs. This reviewer enjoyed Stark’s article because of its different viewpoint and excellent use of political cartoons to convey a message. This reviewer would however, like to recommend that Stark delete all information that is not directly related to his claim because it distracts the reader and causes he or she to lose focus. The second recommendation for Stark is that he format the article differently to make it easier to follow and understand. Overall, this reviewer enjoyed Stark’s article more than Karp’s because Stark’s article is more entertaining and an easier read. The two article reviewed were written differently from each other, Karp used a formal tone while Stark used a more humorous and relaxed approach. The authors of the articles had contrasting viewpoints over congressional term limits. In conclusion, this reviewer has decided that Congressional term limits will help Congress become more successful because incumbent congressmen/ congresswomen are part of the problem. Removing long holding members of Congress will make room for newer members with modern political techniques and viewpoints. This reviewer now strongly believes that Congressional term limits will benefit the people’s self-interest.
The excerpt “Congress: The Electoral Connection” written by David Mayhew centers around the fundamental arguments that discusses how members of congress are self-interested for reelection. Mayhew further elaborates on his idea by discussing the electoral activities that congress members devote their time into and resource from, which are advertising, credit-claiming, and position taking. Mayhew’s excerpt further examines the framework in how congress operates which contributes to the explanation of how and why congress partakes in the certain electoral activities.
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
Preventing federal judges to serve for life is a good concept, except when the judges become too old to continue presiding. Setting term limits for judges would be a great idea, because it would add diversity to the court systems every time a new judge arrives. Some judges are just too old, and senile, to still rule on cases and do their job effectively; therefore, setting term limits would ultimately benefit the courts because it would allow for diversity, and a new judge who may have different standards.
Government exists to serve the people, and not the politicians, American citizens know this. Polls show that Americans want term limitation by margins as high as three-to-one, even four-to-one. Congressional term limitation is the most important issue of our time because the future direction of our country depends upon it. There is no other way to restore government to, us, the people. There is no substitute for term limits. There are many second steps, depending upon where you sit, but there is only one first step toward turning the country around. It is con...
Mann and Norman J. Ornstein argue that the Legislative branch is the most broken branch of government. Congress was designed by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States to be an independent and powerful party. The Framers wanted the Legislative branch to represent the vast diversity of people of the United States, to deliberate on important issues and policies, and to check and balance the other branches. However, Congress’s role in the American Constitutional System differs from the part it was meant to play. The authors argue that Congress has failed to fill its responsibilities to the people of the United States because of the division of the Democratic and Republican parties, which leaves little room for compromise and negotiation. Members of Congress focus on their own needs and interests, and will travel to far lengths to prove that their political party is the most powerful. Congress has turned a blind eye to the needs of the American people. Congress cannot succeed in getting the United States back on track unless they start to follow the rules dictated by the Framers of the Constitution. A vast series of decisions made by Congress, driven by Congress’s disregard for institutional procedures, its tendency to focus on personal ethics, and the overpowering culture of corruption, led to Congress failing to implement important changes in the United States
In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In “If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?” author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.
Stemming from a loose interpretation of the Constitution – and specifically the necessary and proper clause -- congressional oversight is one of many enumerated powers bestowed upon Congress per Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. As the legislative body, Congress is charged with overseeing the inner workings of the Executive Branch and its federal agencies as a part of a system of checks and balances. However, as previously mentioned, this power is one of the implied powers of Congress, thus making it very difficult for many to delineate rightful oversight from reckless meandering. In the Constitution, for example, there is no singular mention of a definitive power such as “congressional oversight.” Consequently, there is no clear set of goals or practices through which Congress can oversee the executive branch. This is where things can become slightly tricky, however.
The Honorable Jonathan Yates, former deputy general counsel for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U. S. House of Representatives, writes, “This lifetime term now enjoyed by justices not only contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, it counters the role intended for the court as a minor player in the equal judiciary branch of government. Term limits are needed to adjust the part of the court to the intent of the founding fathers” (Np). Judge Yates explains that the greatest powers of the Supreme Court did not originate from the Constitution or Congress, but from their own rulings (Np). The most prominent of which, was being Marbury v. Madison, in which the court granted itself judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation (Yates). Furthermore, the intended role of the court by the founding fathers was so small, that it did not have a home, or meet to hear any cases (Yates). An amendment to the Constitution removing the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court judges needs consideration by Congress. Lifetime tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court has led to four points that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Constitution. The first problem resulting from the Supreme Court’s tenure policy is that judges’ are holding on to their seats, disregarding debilitating health issues. The second issue that has arisen from lifetime tenure is the use of strategic retirement by sitting judges to ensure a like-minded replacement. The third development resulting from lifetime tenure is the steady decrease in case decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fourth and final effect lifetime tenure has had on the Supreme Court is an increase in celebrity status of the judges, which has le...
The 22nd Amendment creates a lame duck and which stops abuse of power3. Presidents in their second term have been seen to usually suffer diminished power, particularly after the second midterm elections. This diminish of power creates a lame duck. The president becoming a lame duck, stops him from being able abuse of power. The 22nd Amendment also stops the country from being a monarchy. US. Senators and Congressmen don’t have term limits because their voices are balanced by opposing parties in their chambers, the presidency is different. The president has no similar
Term limits could increase the quality of the Supreme Court nominees. One of the driving factors behind a Supreme Court nominee is their age (Ringhand np). Individuals over 60 years of age are less likely to be appointed. This means presidents intentionally exclude a large number of highly qualified individuals from serving on our nation’s highest court (Ringhand np). Term limits resolve this problem. Furthermore, the threat of a justice’s cognitive decline may be reduced, since there would no longer be a temptation to hold out for a strategically timed retirement.
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.
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.
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
Saad, L. (2013). Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College. Gallup Poll Briefing
The American Academy of Political and Social Science The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science,(2013)