Currently, the members of the Congress have no limitation over the number of years or terms they can serve. The members of the senate are allowed to serve for infinite number of terms each having six years. In the US House of Representatives, members have a term of two years and there is also no limit as to the number of terms that an individual may seek reelection. This means that they can seek reelection every time and if they win, they continue being the representatives. The longest member of the Senate served for 51 years while the longest serving member in the House stayed for 53 years[1]. Over the past years, there have been various attempts to introduce term limits but all have turned futile. In fact, during the 1990-1994 periods, most states enacted term limits but the decision was quashed by the Supreme Court. Despite these numerous attempts, all have been unsuccessful, possibly because the Congress forms the legislative arm of government thus making laws that suit the members. Nevertheless, limiting the term of members of the Congress would be beneficial to the country and improve service delivery to the people.

The general argument for opponents of the introduction of term limits for Congress is that the election is already a term limit in itself. It is not surprising that the majority of those that oppose term limits are members of the Congress or politicians eying the positions in future. The basis of this argument is in the fact that members of the House usually face the constituents every two years and those from the Senate must face their constituents every six years to seek reelection. They feel that having a term limit would limit their careers and render them underemployed. The members of the Congress argue that limiting their terms would work towards transferring the power from the people and taking it to arbitrary processes which is not the basis of politics. However, this argument holds little water in a country where almost every person has basic education and can therefore become a member of the Congress. The opportunity should be spread out to all and that can only be done through term limits.

Most citizens agree that the terms of the Congress should be limited to crack down on career politicians and power brokers. It is true that limiting the member’s terms would be effective in preventing them from gaining too much power and influence. Eventually, the members of Congress would then become much more in sync with the constituents that they are meant to serve. Most politicians in the Congress have the take of their terms as a career and forget that the job they are given is a temporary one. This thinking makes the lawmakers to spend most, if not all, of their time amassing wealth, raising funds for their reelection and posturing. Research has shown that an average member of the Congress spends less than half of their time serving the constituents[2]. They do not spend enough time focusing of the important aspects that sent them to the Congress. Limiting the Congress terms would thus be effective in emphasizing on policy in the Congress rather than on politics as it currently is.

The aspect of experience has been earmarked as the main reason for opposing the limitation of terms for the members of Congress. Opponents argue that the more the members stay in the congress, the more experienced they become and they can therefore serve the constituents better. Essentially, their experience is a plus for the constituents in the fact that they receive better representation in both the Senate and the House. In truth, a person who has more experience can expedite their actions in the Congress. In contrast, first time entrants have little experience and must undergo a learning curve. The opponents argue that this learning curve may take more than one limit and could limit the time that the members have in representing the constituents. In fact, some have argued that limiting the term of members can limit the amount of experience in the congress thus working against the interests of the public. The arguments do have some truth elements in the fact that people who have been in the congress for some time have the advantage of knowing much more about the congress and the bills that are in contention at a given time. However, the assertion, despite having truth elements is selfish in the fact that it assumes only the current members of the congress have the ability of representing the country well. There is also no evidence to show that the more experienced members have any added value over the new entrants in the congress. In fact, some of the first time members of congress have gone ahead to propose the best bills in the United States’ history.

The debate about experience and the lack of the same if the term limits are executed can perfectly be countered through the various corruptions that the members are involved in. The more a members of the congress stays in office, the more power they amass and thus the vulnerability to corruption[3]. Essentially, imposing term limits on members of the congress would be a plus ion the fight against corruption and impunity in the country. Past studies have shown a high likelihood of making decisions that are driven by self interest among members who have stayed for long periods in power. In fact, most of the members who have served for long in the congress tend not to listen to the constituents in making the decisions in the congress. This is evidenced by the many times that the members of the congress go against the public will even in cases where it is all too clear on what the general public want. The members of the congress do not, in this instances consult their constituents in the process of making laws and policy. In the same respect, congress members that have served for long may lose respect for the electorate and end up doing their own will. In addition, these same people may over time become redundant in the laws that they pass due to the lack of focus.

The limitation of terms for the members of the congress would render many talented people out of job due to the term limits. Opponents of term limitation argue that limiting the term, even though serving some good, would be unfair to people that are exceptional in their service delivery in the congress. Essentially, limiting the congressional terms would punish the performing members for evils committed by nonperforming members. In addition, there are many career politicians who are in the congress and they would be pushed out of the job market if the laws came into force. Many of the lawmakers are seasoned political scientists who have no other skills or experience in other jobs. Limiting the term limits for this group of people would mean that they cannot get employment elsewhere after completing their terms. While this seems like a perfect excuse for the removal of term limits, it is veiled in fallacy that is quite evident. There is no requirement for one to study political science for them to join politics[4]. In fact, anyone can become a politician even without having to learn the trade in universities. Arguing that their jobs will be permanently lost is therefore not a valid reason. They should adapt with the tides and learn new skills if they wish to be absorbed in the job market after their terms have elapsed.

While it is true that most lawmakers have some background in political science classes and many have only that single knowledge in the field of academia, the argument to retain them holds no water. Serving in the congress is a temporary assignment bestowed upon an individual that the constituents deem fit to represent their agenda. By extension, politics should not be considered a career, worse still a career for a few people that had the advantage of being elected into office. The distortion in the discourse extended by seasoned pioliticians about the concept of politics has made the general public to accept the fallacy as real facts. Many of the people believe that some people are meant to be life-long politicians but that was not what is meant to be in truth. Serving in the congress is supposed to be a civic duty that is bestowed upon the most fit individuals in the country. It should not be a career for only the few people that have studied political science in class. Essentially, congress representation is a temporary assignment that should be limited for the members.

The advocates of having no limitation on the terms of congress members have argued that doing so is only driven by hatred for politicians in general. The assumption among the general public is that every other politician is corrupt and serves in their own interests. The proponents of term limitation imagine that the moral values of politicians deteriorate over time and that their ability to serve citizens is jeopardize by interest groups and that the public sector is dogged with evil[5]. The opponents of term limitation have always cried foul over this treatment based on the assumption that the seasoned lawmakers have a disconnect with the people they represent. To the opponents, all politicians are elected by the people meaning that these people have actual faith in their leadership. In any case, the constituents would not elect someone who is not in sync with their needs. In addition, term limits are undemocratic and go against the basic principles of democracy by not giving the people the power to make decisions on their own. While all these arguments are true, it is not true that the general public votes the lawmakers in because of their performance. Rather, most are voted in due to being relatively better compared to the others. Actually, a majority of the citizens retain the same politicians in office due to a lack of better options in the same seat. If the people are presented with more options through the term limitations, there would be better performance among the elected class of leaders.

Limiting the term of congress members may work to counter the established hierarchy and inequality among politicians.  Politicians who are long-term members in the congress have the advantage of dominating over the new entrants. The experience that the long-term serving members have gives them the advantage of being more political savvy at the expense of first time politicians. The fact that they are in power means that they can establish important connections that are vital in their reelection plans. It is not surprising that long serving politicians are the best funded during campaigns for the election. The members in office therefore disregard opinions of the constituents are they are too busy planning on how to win the next election. Moreover, the many years that seasoned serving members have makes them much more eligible to chair committees in the congress thus making them even more influential. The overall effect of such a setting is that long serving lawmakers have a better advantage over the newcomers even in the times of election. This fact undermines the principle of having a legislature that is made up of lawmakers of equal importance[6].

Opponents of term limits for congress members have used history to defend their claims. It has been argued countless times that the founders of the country found it fit into set the terms of the various positions the way they did for many reasons. Among the many reasons is the fact that they anticipated that the politicians would go for more than one term. The opponents further argue that the past politicians in history had other careers and could thus be limited as to the number of terms they served. However, in a modern democracy, service to the people requires that politicians spend much longer in office.

Despite the explanation by opponents of term limits, it has much more advantages that one can think of. Moreover, term limits have been in existence from ancient democracies and the concept was supported by the founders of the country. The fact that the presidential terms are limited to two means that the congressional term could also be limited. It is actually unfair to limit terms for one arm of the government while not limiting another;. As currently constituted, the executive arm of the government has its terms limited to two while the legislative arm has no limitation. Limiting the terms of congress is in order and would lead to much more gains than losses.

Bibliography

DeSantis, Ron. “How Lawmakers Could Establish Term Limits.” The Daily Signal. May 4, 2015. Accessed November 28, 2015. http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/04/3-out-of-4-americans-support-term-limits-heres-a-way-congress-could-establish-them/.

Farmer, Rick, John C. Green, and John David Rausch. 2003. The test of time: coping with legislative term limits. Lanham [u.a.]: Lexington Books.

Grofman, Bernard. 1996. Legislative Term Limits: Public Choice Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1812-2.

United States. 1994. Term limits for members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives: hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first and second sessions, November 18, 1993, and June 29, 1994. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

United States. 1997. Limiting terms of office for members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate: hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, first session, January 22, 1997. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

[1] DeSantis, Ron. “How Lawmakers Could Establish Term Limits.” The Daily Signal. May 4, 2015. Accessed November 28, 2015. http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/04/3-out-of-4-americans-support-term-limits-heres-a-way-congress-could-establish-them/.

[2] Farmer, Rick, John C. Green, and John David Rausch. 2003. The test of time: coping with legislative term limits. Lanham [u.a.]: Lexington Books.

[3] United States. 1997. Limiting terms of office for members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate: hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, first session, January 22, 1997. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

[4] United States. 1994. Term limits for members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives: hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first and second sessions, November 18, 1993, and June 29, 1994. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

[5] Grofman, Bernard. 1996. Legislative Term Limits: Public Choice Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1812-2.

[6] United States. 1994. Term limits for members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives: hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first and second sessions, November 18, 1993, and June 29, 1994. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?