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 …show more content…
candidacy. As stated by Mark Petracca, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, “… opponents of term limitation are actually confusing the right to vote per se with two other important rights: the right to vote for a specific individual and the right of individuals to run for office. Neither of these have been recognized as a constitutional right by the federal courts.” An amendment would have to be passed giving all people a right to candidacy before the claim that term limits are undemocratic would have a semblance of legitimacy. Additionally, there is the fact that term limits are already placed on other public officials, mostly prominently the president.
Presidential term limits, imposed by the 22nd amendment, could easily face the same scrutiny as congressional term limits because they impede the ability of the American people to vote for whomever they wish to serve as president. However, term limits on the president do not face the same intensity of argument as do term limits on members of Congress, perhaps because members of Congress place their own career on the line in voting for a congressional term limits amendment. If restrictions on the number of terms the president can serve are considered democratic, there should be no reason that restrictions on congressional terms are …show more content…
not. Speaking of democratic, term limits enjoy a high level of public support. One study reports that 75% of Americans were in favor of term limits as of 2015 (Saad). This percentage constitutes a supermajority of the population. With such a large proportion of citizens in favor of term limits, there should be no reason that members of Congress acting as representatives of their constituents should not be working to pass an amendment imposing term limits; indeed, a number of politicians are elected on campaign promises of limited term legislation. Yet most term limits amendments have never gained a majority vote in either house. This is largely attributed to the fact that once in office, members of Congress do not want to forfeit their seats (A. Phillips). It makes sense that after having campaigned for and being elected into office, Congressmen no longer want to push for term limits amendments that would eventually force them out of their jobs. Thus, politicians stay in office and gain legislative experience that makes it difficult to remove them without facing disadvantages. This contributes to the careerism in politics and lack of representation that people want to see abolished with term limits. Term limits have been accused of forcing members of Congress to rely more on lobbyist and special interest groups due to the institutional memory loss that comes with high member turnover.
Critics argue that term limits lead inexperienced legislatures to become heavily dependent on special interest groups and lobbyists for their assistance, both financial and legislative. In practice, this is not the case. According to Patrick Basham, a doctor of political science and founder of the think-tank Democracy Institute, “Term limits diminish the value of a legislative seat to lobbyists and the special interests they represent because term limits increase the cost of lobbying individual politicians.” As relatively short-term legislatures enter and leave Congress more often, it becomes less financially sensible for special interest groups to make large donations to legislatures that force these legislatures to become reliant on the interest group. This leads to less reliance on special interest groups as career politicians no longer depend on the financial contributions of special interest groups to assist in the next
campaign. A final criticism of term limits is the idea that people already have the ability to vote out incumbents. While this is technically true, this argument ignored the fact that there are consequences to voting out entrenched legislatures that are harmful to the legislature’s district. Without term limits, districts that vote out their incumbents lose legislative experience relative to other districts that reelect their incumbents. As stated by Einer Elhauge, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, “Any individual district that ousts its incumbent is thus penalized by a smaller share of legislative power and governmental benefits unless the other districts also oust their incumbents.” This leads to less ideological representation in a district that wishes to keep its legislative experience so as to compete better with other districts for government resources. Thus, while the people technically are able to limit the terms of their legislatures, this ability comes at a cost that most districts seem unwilling to pay. If term limits were imposed, however, loss of experience would be a nonissue because each district would be equally losing legislative experience. Imposing term limits would remove those entrenched incumbents who rely more on legislative experience than voter representation to stay in office. Today, the incumbent advantage, lack of representation, and reduced focus on legislation have led a majority of Americans to believe that Congress is broken and the people are powerless to fix it. In any democracy, a powerless people is an inexcusable transgression that threatens the very core of republican principles. Congressional careerism is the cause of that threat, and term limits are the solution. The ideas that term limits are undemocratic and bolster special interest groups simply are not true, nor is that notion that legislatures can be voted out of office sans term limits without penalty to that legislature’s district. Not only do terms limits combat the issues associated with careerism in Congress, but they bring about a return to the citizen legislature, and in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
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
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.
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...
Essentially, interest groups use many different tactics to accomplish their central goals but this paper will detail 2 of them. The first being lobbying, which is the act of persuading businesses as well as government leaders to help a specific organization by changing laws or creating events in favor of that group. Interest groups use this technique by hiring someone to represent them and advocate their cause to on the behalf of the entire group. These hired representatives usually have more than enough experience within the political field and are able to persuade connections within the government for help with their concerns. This method gets a lot of criticism because although lobbyist offer their input to government officials on pending laws, they only look at what is favorable for their cause. When trying to make a difference you have to not only reflect on your argument but on the side affects of that argument as
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.
The 22nd amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the states by 1951. In which this document or amendment limited the terms of the president to two four year terms. It helps limit the power the president can receive and prevent them from getting “king like powers” it from turning into a monarchy.
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.
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.
Presidential Influence in Congress." American Journal of Political Science 29.2 (1985): 183-96. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2014.
According to Linz, term limits in presidentialism force a president to serve a country for a fixed period of time
...deralists voiced was their dislike of the “four year term with indefinite re-eligibility.” The Constitution called for the President to be elected by the “electoral college” which removed the concern of Congress “controlling” the Executive and the Concern the Executive would appease Congress to be reappointed. The election process would ensure the President was on his best behavior if he desired to be re-elected. By establishing the four year term the Constitution protected the office from becoming a monarchy due to the fact that if a President migrated too much toward monarchical rule they would simply not be re-elected. Another advantage of the four year term with the eligibility of being re-elected was stability, it allowed for the continuation of good Executive policy and the ability to change if the policy was in line with what the electors desired.
These pluralistic interest groups are free to operate and lobby in the political arena, fighting against the majority and other competing factions for voice in Congress. With the influence of multiple factions operating throughout the political system, a balance of power is created (Kernell 2000, 429). This is much like the international theory of sovereign states balancing each other’s power to create a political system that focuses on stability, yet is always in a constant flux of power. With this in mind, special interest groups are constantly contending for power by raising money, campaigning, and lobbying in Congress. When a special interest group is threatened by a competing policy, the group will organize efforts to balance, or transcend the power of the competing group.
Saad, L. (2013). Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College. Gallup Poll Briefing
Let’s face it, elections are nothing but a popularity contest and Americans are stupid. It’s pathetic what kind of people are considered popular and even more pathetic what kind of people end up in government. If Americans don’t start taking government more seriously and start making more educated decisions about what kind of people are elected into office, we could be in real trouble in the future.