Term Limits In The Supreme Court

Rosenberg first gives rough definitions of the "Dynamic Court" and the "Constrained Court," which he considers the two possible views to be held about the court system's influence, though he believes both are over simplifications by themselves. The "Dynamic Court" sees the judiciary "as powerful, vigorous, and potent proponents of change" (Rosenberg 1991, 2). Proponents this theory alone believe the courts have great power and influence to effect social change, but Rosenberg believes the 'mystification' of the judicial system has given this view more allure than truth. Under the "Constrained Court" theory, courts are "weak, powerless, and ineffective for change," have little power nor influence to

In 1995, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The court ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. After the recent ballot measure adding an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate, was challenged on the grounds that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five

The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications. Appointing the judges on the other hand would only benefit that particular party affiliation. The outcome of judges being appointed would ultimately bring more harm than good. The plus for appointments would

What is actually happening is allowing Supreme Court justices to serve for life. An article stated that “by making new appointments less frequent, longer tenure has diminished the abilities of presidents and senators to provide the only form of democratic accountability that is consistent with judicial independence,” (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). William Douglas, who has set record for Supreme Court tenure (almost 37 years) who has cast the deciding vote, along with Hugo Black who retired at the age of 85 and Thurgood Marshall who retired at the age of 83. “ I’m getting old and falling apart,” Marshall said on his last day (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). That’s why it is better to bring fresh perspectives, and especially those people who understand the

When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.

Congressional term limits have been what restricted the amount of time that anyone can work in office whether it be to a representative, senator, or even the president. People have debated over keeping or losing the term limits, since each come with their own benefits and faults at the same time. In the argument for term limits, some may argue that they are necessary because, “Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves” (Weeks). The validity in this statement proves to be one of the strongest arguments because the creation of laws is mean to serve all people, and if the people in office had complete immunity, it would serve unfair and unjust to the rest of society. For this reason, it always will make those in office consider how impactful and

The argument/famous Supreme Court case Madison vs. Marbury asked us the question should the Judicial Branch be able to declare laws unconstitutional. I think the Judicial Branch should be able to declare a law unconstitutional. I believe this because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money.

James Madison wrote The Federalist 51 in order to state how the future government would make liberty possible in society. Madison believed that each branch should be, for the most part, independent. Montesquieu previously thought of this idea of separation of power. He then goes on to explain that to ensure that each branch is independent, it would mean that the citizens would select the president, legislators, and the judges. However, framers found great difficulty in making the correct decision when it came to an election. The Judicial Branch would suffer because the average framer did not understand the qualifications of the Supreme Court Justices.

Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society.

It was the Presidential election of 1800 where Thomas Jefferson won against John Adams. Around this time, Congress had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This act altered the Judiciary Act of 1789 in establishing ten new district courts. This was to expand the number of circuit courts from three to six, add additional judges to each circuit, and give the President the authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of the peace. This act also reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five.

With term limit there is less time for a member of congress be corrupted by reelection campaigns and work harder on the issues that the people the represent wish to have worked on, and if not eventually even with reelection the will be out of congress. I believe term limits would correlate with higher congressional approval ratings, and I also believe higher congressional approval ratings would cause the voting population to be more passionate on who represents them because the know there is a much higher chance of their representative actually representing them, causing higher voter turnout. This is a succinct summary of why I believe congressional term limits should be the next constitutional amendment. I will end this essay noting that a much deeper examination must be done on this subject nationally and culturally so that we the people can formulate an answer to keep The Republic from becoming “The

What would result from the repeal of the 22nd amendment? Would we be forced to submit to a dictatorship? Or would we be blessed with an illustrious leader? Would we be willing to take that risk? The 22nd amendment states that, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...” Recent discussions and proposals have been put forth to repeal or modify the amendment. No person should have that opportunity to surrender to the charms of power. Two four year terms should be more than enough time to make a positive change for the nation.

Decades ago, children of various races could not go to school together in many locations of the United States. School districts could segregate students, legally, into different schools according to the color of their skin. The law said these separate schools had to be equal. Many schools for children that possessed color were of lesser quality than the schools for white students. To have separate schools for the black and white children became a basic rule in southern society. After the Brown vs. Board of Education case, this all changed.

There have been thousands amendments proposed in Congress. The Constitution creates a two-stage amendment process. This process is known as the proposal and ratification. It is extremely difficult for an amendment to become a part of the Constitution. Therefore, an amendment can be blocked at any given time. The importance of the Supreme Court increases as the Constitution considers proposing

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative.