FDR is a good case to discuss when it comes to this issue. The justification for putting a term limit on the presidency was to eliminate the possibility of a charismatic leader taking over the process. Since they are alone as the leader of the executive branch, they wield a particularly large proportion of power as opposed to the legislators, who are tempered by their numbers.
It is debatable whether FDR did great things. Although I personally agree with you, there are scores of Republicans and Libertarians who disagree. I agree with others in the comments that term limits would be good at a reasonable length, maybe at the 10 year mark that has been suggested or 12 for Senate. This is a discussion that has been going on for quite a while, and I suspect it will continue for a while more.
The people of this country have shown that they don't have the capacity to know when a congress person has had enough. The resent history has provided all of us the proof we need to provide better any argument that anyone here could come up with for or against term limits. We have corrupt legislators in Congress. The constitution doesn't provide for term limits of the president, yet legislators decided we needed a 22nd Amendment to prevent more than two terms in that office.
FDR though, did great things during some very tough times. Had he not died in office, he would have continued to run for office. These very same legislators now don't think term limits should apply to them, because it would be unconstitutional. I would rather trust one man or woman to be president for more than two terms than a group of legislators that have entrenched themselves for life within our governing body to ensure their luxurious lifestyles at our expense.
Set defined term limits, once the limit has been reached do not allow outgoing congress members to stay in Washington as consultants or lobbyists for at least two years.
Make them all go home and live under the same laws they passed while in term. LoriCharlie Post 6 strawCake - I disagree with you. There are term limits for the president, so why shouldn't there be term limits for other elected officials? If the person who holds our highest office doesn't spent years in office before really learning the job, why should it be different for people who are in Congress?
I would rather have people in Congress who are actually experienced making the laws, rather than having new people join every couple of years.
If everyone in Congress were inexperienced, they would never get anything done. Also, who knows what people would do if they didn't have to worry about being re-elected? They could just do whatever they wanted, instead of what the people they represent want them to do. I could see that going very, very wrong. SZapper Post 4 betterment - Interesting idea. Ten years sounds about right to me. It's enough time to learn the job and do some things, but it's not long enough to spend your whole adult life in Congress.
I'm sure some people still wouldn't be happy with a year limit, though. The justices are chosen by the president and confirmed by Congress. I think we could introduce term limits, but make them very reasonable.
Maybe that no one could serve more than 10 years in Congress? That way, we could still benefit from having experienced people, but people wouldn't be able to actually make a whole career out of being a politician. I think this could get rid of some of the problems that stem from people being career legislators and caring more about being re-elected than about actually doing their jobs.
I'm 13 and I know a lot about this topic. While many people argue that there should be term limits, I don't think there should because we would be forcing some of the best people out. And before you stop reading this because you are saying that we would also be forcing the bad people out, which is a good thing, let me say that we wouldn't have to force them out using term limits.
Hopefully, Americans would have the good sense not to re-elect them. Post your comments Post Anonymously Please enter the code: One of our editors will review your suggestion and make changes if warranted. Note that depending on the number of suggestions we receive, this can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days.
Thank you for helping to improve wiseGEEK! View slideshow of images above. Watch the Did-You-Know slideshow. Jacob Queen Edited By: Lauren Fritsky Last Modified Date: This Day in History. The Star Spangled Banner poem was written. You might also Like. What Is the 22nd Amendment? What is a Federal Reserve Chairman? In fact, the great majority of representatives are elected time after time despite consistently low approval ratings for congress as a whole.
With so many of the same actors repeatedly returning to the same offices, it should be no surprise that things do not change. Term limits are a simple solution to the problem by mandating in law that new entrants will join congress periodically and ensuring that the membership is completely renewed over a defined period of time.
Reduces Opportunities for Corruption Although serving in the same office, representatives who are not encumbered by term limits have far more time to develop connections with interest groups as well as learn how to navigate the system for personal gain. This can lead to corruption and raise questions about the integrity of the system.
Term limits reduce the time in office that representative have to pursue illicit gains as a result of their position or be corrupted by outside influences. Furthermore, it eliminates the immunity that many elected officials currently enjoy by ensuring they will soon be deprived of it.
Reduces Short Term Political Pressure Office holders are required to respond to the interests of their constituency but this can at times be at odds with the representatives personal view of what would be best. Congressman and Senators are elected to use their discretion, not vote along the lines of popular opinion on any given issue.
Term limits reduce the immediate pressure on elected officials who will soon face voters by limiting the amount of time defining the amount of time they will serve in the position ahead of time. This should allow them to focus on the long term needs of the country as opposed to the current political climate. Empowers New Arrivals One of the primary results of unlimited terms is the inevitable development of systems of seniority.
This favors the politicians who are able to hold their jobs the longest while stifling the opportunities for more recent arrivals to bring up and debate new ideas. Term limits dismantle any defacto or defined systems of seniority by capping the number of years any representative will be able to serve. Representatives who have recently been elected should also find it easier to promote an agenda or make themselves heard by removing the control of more senior members.
Dismantles Political Machines Political parties maintain their influence and exert pressure on members largely through the pressure placed on these individuals by running for office and staying there. This can allow these organizations to promote favored elected officials or those that most closely adhere to the part line. Term limits would greatly inhibit the control political parties have over the system by eliminating opportunities for patronage over time as well as reducing partisanship by empowering new entrants outside of the formal party system.
Reduces Fundraising Pressure One of the frequent complaints among both legislators as well as voters is the role that money plays in the system. Representatives feel constrained by the amount of time and resources they must devote to election campaigns cycle after cycle. Voters are speculative of the undemocratic influence of outside money. Term limits would reduce this pressure by simply limiting the number of times an elected official will face voters.
It is possible that term limits would not have much of an effect on the overall amount of money in the absence of other meaningful reforms but it should limit the amount of time elected officials will have to donate to fundraising. Undemocratic Democracy requires voters have the opportunity to select their elected representatives but term limits control the choice.
Many Americans like their representative and are willing to elect the same person time after time, as demonstrated by the number of incumbents returned each cycle.
There are some who believe that Congress benefits from fresh blood, while there are others who see the value in government continuity. Each side of the debate has points to make, so with that in mind, let’s take a deeper dive into the pros and cons of Congressional term limits. The Pros of Congressional Term Limits. 1.
Here are some questions and answers about term limits and the ongoing debate surrounding the idea, as well as a look at the pros and cons of term limits for Congress.
The Pros of Term Limits for Congress. 1. Encourages Active Representation The inability of congress to take meaningful action on any number of issues is a frequent justification for the consistently low approval ratings of the institution among voters. Term limits for Congress have various pros and cons to be considered. Seniority creates the ability to facilitate change in Washington DC, but it also creates gridlock because congressional representatives also wish to continue being re-elected.
In the United States, presidential term limits were enacted in The concept was passed by Congress in , then ratified by the states on February 27, It would become the 22nd Amendment to the constitution, limiting a president to two terms in office. In total, a president is permitted. List of Cons of Term Limits for Congress. 1. It gives room to inexperienced politicians. Critics of term limits argue that most new politicians tend to be ideological and lack the experience long-term politicians have.