The document discusses arguments for and against term limits for members of Congress. It presents the view of Fabius, who argues for an amendment limiting Representatives to 4 terms and Senators to 2 terms. It then presents the opposing view of Caesar, who argues against term limits and for allowing voters to choose whichever candidates they want regardless of term numbers. The author ultimately agrees with Caesar, concluding that no changes are needed to the current system as experience is important and the Constitution has worked well without limits imposed for many years.

1. Madeline Schmidt<br />12-8-2009<br />Block 3<br />Term Limits for Congress<br />In the U.S. constitution it states that Representatives in the House serve 2-year terms and the Senate members serve 4-year terms. The Constitution does not stay a certain amount of terms each person can have. Thus, arguments over whether or not term limits should be put in place and by what means, an amendment or a Supreme Court decision.<br />In Fabius’s article, Limit the Terms of Members of Congress, Fabius instantly takes a position against unlimited Congressional terms. He proposes that an amendment be made to limit the Representatives to 4 terms and the Senate members to 2 terms. He references to Aristotle and Cicero by saying that having more people involved in a government is better. Originally, in the Articles of Confederation Congress was limited to 3 terms but to Jefferson’s disapproval, the rule was dropped in the revised Constitution. Terms weren’t an early issue because Congress was not considered a full time job, so its members would only participate for a small amount of time then move on. During the 1900s the Congress’s duties increased and so did their pay and benefits, thus giving members more reason to serve multiple terms. Congress is exempt from many laws they create such as, minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination laws. Members are able to serve more than one term because new runners rarely come about so they are reelected up to 90% of the time. He states that Congress should be limited so they don’t become use to all the privileges they acquire with their jobs. All-in-all Fabius is for a new amendment to keep Congress from getting caught up in the benefits of the job. <br />The author Caesar in his article, Keep the Current System, takes a very strong opinion against Fabius’s point. His point is that people should be able to vote for whichever member they chose regardless of term numbers. Henry Clay served a 5 year term and in that time he created the Missouri Compromise with ultimately prevented war between states. With term limits some great Congressional decisions may have never happened. In the statistics, the numbers are rigged because they do not include the people who do not run for reelection. Caesar also states that gerrymanderment plays a role by placing some lawmakers in “safe seats.” A limited term does not allow members to gain experience and knowledge, leaving major decisions to uninformed lawmakers. He feels more corruption will be evident thus there should be no limit on terms. <br />I feel that no limit should be put in place. The best person should be chosen for the job regardless of previous term numbers. The benefits that Congress receives due to their jobs, I feel are deserved; all jobs have perks. Experience is probably one of the most important factors in any job, why should Congress experience be any different? There are always laws to remove people from office is corruption does occur, so that shouldn’t be a deciding factor. If all congress members were new ones then who would be the experienced voice in the room? It is similar to presidential candidates as in those with more experience tend to win over young inexperienced candidates. In any other job you keep it till you resign or get let go, Congress is a job, entitled to the same principles. The American government is built upon checks and balances so Congress will never get so powerful till it is a national concern. If our founding fathers thought term limits was an issue they would have added it earlier on. Changing something so insignificant to our hundred year old constitution is a waste of time.<br />In the end, no amendment or change should be made to Congressional term limits. Changing something that has seemed to work for many years is pointless. They best man will get the job with the current system, or they can be replaced with someone better. <br />