The rule has an immensely important effect on the US political environment - and, given the strength of that nation, on the global community. If readers are interested, in relation to this debate, I would hold it to be of moot value in any case: But this is a debate about the principle of term limits on the highest executive office. The two-term limit is undemocratic. If Americans want to vote for a President again after two terms, and that President is willing to serve, why should their wishes automatically be denied?
The two-term convention was seized upon by a coalition of senators who wanted more power for themselves by undermining the Presidency , FDR haters and presidential aspirants who wanted to ensure regular turnover at the top. There is no logical basis for this limitation beyond that. The effect of this scheming is damaging: This amendment limits voter choice. The Presidency is different from almost any other kind of office in the US.
The nearest analogy would be with state governors - many of which have term limits, too. A strong executive is important for both philosophical and practical reasons.
This is because the prospect of future tenure gives the Presidency leverage to get things done. Without that, Presidential terms suffer the lame duck effect, in which a President is less and less able to force his legislative agenda: The limit effectively denies the choice voters have made of coming to practical fruition: In any case, the power of potential future office primarily draws its strength from potential patronage - a nepotistic consideration which, though inevitable, should not be credited with such importance that a third term should be allowed to encourage it.
In times of national or international crisis, continuity and experience can be vital. The 22nd Amendment automatically denies the possibility of democratically approved continuity. This is particularly worrying given that thousands of jobs in the executive branch of government change hands every time a new President is elected, something which is not so common in the civil service of other countries.
The opposition must show why the idea of continuity in a crisis is less important than the principle of a two-term limit. New perspectives can provide different types of influence and that can inspire changes which may benefit the whole of society. Senators and Representatives would be able to bring more to each discussion because they are less likely to be isolated from their districts because of the responsibilities in Washington.
It may encourage people to vote. Many people vote in every election, but a majority of people in a district not voting is becoming an all-too-common occurrence. By establishing term limits, more people could come out to vote because there would be more opportunities for change. Voters would know that even if their preferred candidate loses, term limits set a specific deadline that cannot be changed.
It would stop political power maneuvering. Many of the political machines in the United States are designed to keep people in office. Before his first days in office were even completed, Donald Trump had a re-election PAC in place and was raising money for his next campaign. Incumbents can wield a lot of power to stay in office and term limits would help to cut this leverage away.
The focus can be placed on governing instead of being elected. It would limit the influence of lobbying. They do this because those people can represent their specific interests. The only problem is that special interests are often contrary to what the will of the people happen to want. By establishing term limits in Congress, more new candidates would be able to present their ideas and that could help to balance out the scales of influence in each election.
It allows for newly elected officials to have influence. The system of seniority in Congress does have some benefits for leadership, but it also comes with a large disadvantage. Newly elected officials rarely receive powerful posts on committees or can influence procedures. That responsibility goes to those who have more seniority and power. As a result, new Senators and Representatives may spend more of their time trying to get a foot in the door than the time they spend actually crafting helpful legislation.
Term limits would make it possible for more elected officials to influence the direction of the country. It could limit the potential for corruption. When politicians have a specific time in office, there is less of a risk of corruption entering into the conversation. Newly elected officials will usually have less knowledge about how to influence Congress for their own personal gain.
New members are usually more skeptical of special interest lobbying efforts as well. Having more new faces come through because of term limits would make it more difficult to unduly influence future laws.
It could create rogue politicians. When an elected official is in their last term in office, they can use that opportunity to drive legislation forward that may not be politically popular.
They can pursue what they feel is best for their district and their country because criticism and everyday politics can then be ignored. It is a chance to create meaningful and lasting change.
Term limits also allow for change that is necessary to adapt to the changing times. Presidential candidates who have experienced more that is government based (such as serving in the military or other government positions) are more knowledgeable about the country, the crisis that the county may be in, and how to handle these situations.
Jan 19, · President Barack Obama said he thought he could have been elected to a third term. But of course, he couldn't even seek one.
The idea of imposing term limits for Congress, or a mandatory restriction on how long members of the House and Senate can serve in office, has been debated by the public for centuries. There are pros and cons and strong opinions on both sides of the issue, perhaps a surprise, given the electorate. No. The Presidency is different from almost any other kind of office in the US. Senators and Congressmen don’t have term limits because their voices are balanced by opposition in their respective chambers; the President has no .
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. Here are the pros and cons of term limits for Congress in the U.S. to . Home Big Issues 11 Term Limits for Congress Pros and Cons. Big Issues; 11 Term Limits for Congress Pros and Cons. Share on Facebook. Tweet on Twitter. In the United States, the President is limited to serving two terms in office. This is because of the Twenty-Second Amendment, which was ratified in February Term limits .