Reference no: EM133596380

Overestimating the impact that term restrictions would have on Congress is demanding. They are backed by significant majorities of most American demographic categories, including special interest categories and incumbent politicians that rely on them predominantly opposed. Essentially, term limits would aid in solving most of America's most significant political issues by ensuring congressional turnover, independent congressional judgment, and balancing incumbent benefits. Moreover, election-related incentives for excessive spending by the government are lowered. Most importantly, Congress would gain a sense of its transience and fragility, possibly even learning that performing better work on fewer responsibilities would give it greater credibility as an institution. Congressional term restrictions are a vital adjustment to disparities that unavoidably disadvantage challengers while benefiting incumbents.

The founders had reservations about the amount of authority entrusted to the President since they had been recently broken free from a single powerful management, and the prospect of being devoured by another power was a continual source of anxiety for them (Roos 1).

When the founding fathers wrote the first draft of the U.S. Constitution, they granted full power to the individual state legislatures and permission to execute the Confederation Articles. At the same time, the national government did not have any authority. The result was political chaos and crippling debt, nearly sinking the fledgling nation. Consequentially, these founding fathers decided to reconvene and create a new Constitution. This meeting happened in 1787 in Philadelphia, and the founders based the new Constitution on a revolutionary split of national and state powers known as federalism. Since 1787, federalism has been an adequate trial in shared governance in the United States.