U.S. Constitutional Amendment Propoasal
Should the Constitution be amended to limit representatives, senators, and members of the judiciary to 12 years of total service?
After researching many different opinions and answers to this question, I came across my own personal conclusion that maybe we should have term limits. As far as there being a good or bad result to limiting representative terms, I think that this would have to actually be voted on and put to the test in order to determine if it will work for us or not. Americans are great at saying what won’t work but can very rarely give ideas on what will work for the people. Our forefathers divided the government into three branches in order to maintain checks and balances. The purpose of this was to avoid the risk of possible dictatorship or a single person gaining total control of the government, what I like to call going on a power trip.
The fifth of the seven articles of Constitution gives us the opportunity to “change”, amend or add to the Constitution according to the growth and changes within the nations. Because we have this ability does not mean we can amend everything or anything we do not agree with, the amendments or additions must reflect on meeting the needs of the people, basically it must be necessary.
The U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton is a ruling that said if such changes were to be made and term limits were set, then the only way to do it would be by amending the Constitution. This also cited that term limits would be the nation’s best interest by setting limits on the time representatives and senators could serve. There was a national poll taken in 2010 that showed 78 percent of Americans favored the idea to term limits and the remaining citizens who declined were all people are in House.
Overall I do not feel as if there is a bad outcome to term limits, this will give those in House a rest while letting someone else bring in some fresh ideas. This country is based on change and we do it often and fast so I think it’s a great
After researching many different opinions and answers to this question, I came across my own personal conclusion that maybe we should have term limits. As far as there being a good or bad result to limiting representative terms, I think that this would have to actually be voted on and put to the test in order to determine if it will work for us or not. Americans are great at saying what won’t work but can very rarely give ideas on what will work for the people. Our forefathers divided the government into three branches in order to maintain checks and balances. The purpose of this was to avoid the risk of possible dictatorship or a single person gaining total control of the government, what I like to call going on a power trip.
The fifth of the seven articles of Constitution gives us the opportunity to “change”, amend or add to the Constitution according to the growth and changes within the nations. Because we have this ability does not mean we can amend everything or anything we do not agree with, the amendments or additions must reflect on meeting the needs of the people, basically it must be necessary.
The U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton is a ruling that said if such changes were to be made and term limits were set, then the only way to do it would be by amending the Constitution. This also cited that term limits would be the nation’s best interest by setting limits on the time representatives and senators could serve. There was a national poll taken in 2010 that showed 78 percent of Americans favored the idea to term limits and the remaining citizens who declined were all people are in House.
Overall I do not feel as if there is a bad outcome to term limits, this will give those in House a rest while letting someone else bring in some fresh ideas. This country is based on change and we do it often and fast so I think it’s a great