28th Amendment Benefits

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

Federalist paper #71 justifies the duration of the President, it was written by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton defends the the constitution for a presidential term of four-years. Some people would say that having a President in term for that long would increase the risk of the President embracing too much power. The paper also talks about how the longer someone is in office, the more chances you have to make bold moves since your position is secure. If the term was cut shorter, the president would be less interested in the position and would most likely conclude with a term that is marked by “feebleness and irresolution” (Fed 71). But, Hamilton argues that a four year term will give the president the ability to pursue certain goals; which may in fact help the American people and their representatives who are in Congress. A president that is in term for four years will be able to go after what he thinks is the right thing to do, considering he has had 4 years of

A term limit is made prevents government officials from serving for more than a specified number of terms. The

I strongly believe that Congress should have term limits. Currently, members of the House of Representatives can serve two-terms. These two terms equal six years. In a previous post, I discussed how the amendments should not be allowed to be changed with ease and the two term rule falls under the 22Nd amendment. If this amendment changed, it would allow a president to serve more than six years and that is way too much. Every president has a different idea of how they want the country ran and sometimes those ideas are not always the best. With the two term rule, a new president can come in and try their

unlimited terms) must be assuaged or tempered by the fear of ‘elective dictatorship’ -a President using the advantages of having extended time in office to win one election after another. Unlimited terms will eventually lead to a dictatorship/monarchy, exactly what our country and Founding Fathers were trying to reject. History shows this to be true with historians often pointing to George Washington’s decision to retire after his second term as evidence that our nation’s founders saw a two-term limit as a protection against monarchy. Thomas Jefferson also contributed to the convention of a two-term limit when he wrote, “if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life” in 1807. No President, while some did seek it, received more that two-terms in office until Franklin Roosevelt whom won four elections but died in office. After that the governor of New York, Thomas E. Dewey, announced support of what would later be the 22nd amendment. He stated, "Four terms, or sixteen years, is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed." Simply stated, America’s beginnings are based on the rejection of monarchy and cronyism: the 22nd Amendment stops this from coming about by other

If Congress should have term limits or not has been a long debated question that is suggested as an amendment to the qualifications division of the Constitution. There are outstanding arguments on both side of the issue 5; unconstitutionality versus limiting power and mixture versus seniority are just a few. Term limits are requirement to upload the founder’s objectives, to inhibit unfair advantages given to resident, and to permit an assembly of additional benefits. Opponents of term limits have said in today’s world we need men and women to represent them in congress and term limits which will remove legislators when the start to become useful to constituents.

One of the most debated topics in American politics is whether term limits should be implemented for Federal Congressmen and Senators. Currently, members of the House of Representatives serve two-year terms and those in the Senate serve six-year terms, but there are an unlimited number of terms a person can run for in these legislatures (Barbour 217). It's important to analyze the arguments for and against term limits for Federal Congressmen and Senators in order to grasp a better understanding of this subject. One argument supporting the implementation of term limits for Federal Congressmen and Senators is that it allows for new blood in the Federal government. Since term limits limt how many terms a Federal Congressmen and Senators can serve, term limits would then cut out career politicians that prioritize their time on reelection then the problems of the constituents.

Imposing term limits on the United States Congress could potentially lead to a massive reduction of knowledgeable politicians in the American government, thus resulting in a fatal blow to the future of American progression. When term limits are imposed, it has been shown that legislatures eventually lose valuable leaders, that have the experience of law making and representing their districts with excellence. The national legislation also would willingly increase the power held by the Executive Branch, this intern could compromise the checks and balances system.

No government is perfect and there is no perfect fix. One important step for democratic governments is to have a political efficacy in their citizens, for a robust and competent government. Keeping with this idea of efficacy, there has been a movement for political reform requesting to institute congressional term limits. This essay will address the concept of congressional term limits through research for and against the idea. The review will start with basic information and history of term limits, focus on the positive arguments for term limits, address the counter arguments for term limits, and conclude with an overall analysis of the findings of term limits and if the U.S. should have term limits.

It is a good thing there are not term limits. Election time should be used to elemenate unwanted office members. If someone is doing a good job then there is not reason to changes thing. It is very hard to fix things that are not

Term limits would also decrease experience and would not help anyone gain more knowledge for their job. In essence, limits are not needed for United States Senators and Representatives. All Americans eighteen and older have a right to vote. If people do not like their current U.S. Senator or Representative that is running in an election for another term, they simply do not have to vote for him or her. When an official is not making the best decisions and/or choices, it is up to the people to make a

A common belief across the United states is that congress is not performing as well as they could, or should, be. One solution that citizens often come to, is implement term limits for Congress. Unlike many political debates, this one cannot be clearly divided between republican and democratic viewpoints. Term limits would be a clear message to congress saying, ‘this is the amount of time you have to fix the problems facing this country, and if you cannot do that, we will replace you someone who can’. Though no longer on the federal political agenda, the desire for congressional term limits has steadily grown over time for many reasons. Among these lie the desires to push career politicians out of office, to build trust with the American people, and preventing any sort of greed that might occur in a longstanding politician.

It was passed by Congress in 1947 on March 21 and was ratified on Feb. 27, 1951 almost four years later. Not too long ago, many presidents had actually considered running for more than two terms. Ulysses. Grant, Grover Cleveland, and Theodore Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to and only Franklin Roosevelt succeeded. He won a third and fourth term. A few years later, Congress took into consideration a proposal to limit presidency to two terms. The 22nd amendment was debated, passed, and ratified without much drama. I would change this amendment because with proper background searches, voting, and careful consideration I think it’d be very wise to have the availability to keep a president in office for more than two terms if citizens agree to it. I think that there should be a limit but not at exactly two terms. I believe that it should be up to the people voting to decide who is president and for how long they want to keep that person their president, especially if they’re doing well in office. You can find the amendment process in the two ways that amendments are proposed. Amendments can be proposed by Congress if at least 2/3 of the members of both the House of Representatives (290) and the senate (67) vote for it. Step 1 in amending the constitution is that two-thirds of both houses of Congress pass a constitutional amendment. This sends the amendment to the states for ratification. Three-fourths of

There is a lot of historical context that go into this amendment being passed. Socially, this amendment could lead to a number of great changes in the society we live in today. If members of Congress knew that their time was limited, not just limited by the threat of not being elected, but limited by a constitutional amendment, they would be more careful in enacting long term policies that normal citizens become the most affected by. They would have to be more careful because they would know that there would most definitely be a time in the future where they would be living under these new policies. The thought of living under their own policies will greatly affect which laws they vote on or propose themselves. Having limits on terms can also help encourage everyday citizens to run for

Numerous Americans are unaware that by next year, the average age of Supreme Court justices will be 75. Unlike other countries, the United States’ Supreme Court does not enforce the idea of term limits. Once a judge is selected, when they leave the Supreme Court is up to their decision. Supreme Court justices may choose to retire early or die. However, as the judges are getting older and older, their health may intervene with the decisions that are being made. Issues regarding the health of the justices’ would not be a reoccurring annoyance if they were to be swapped out with younger and healthier judges; therefore, term limits are a good idea because there would be more diversity in the Supreme Court, mental and health issues would be reduced, and term limits would be long enough for judges to master the job.