TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS I believe that term limits should be placed on our Congressmen and women because it would allow for a more efficient Congress. The current Congress is in shambles, a dismal failure and is in desperate need of new ideas, procedures, and influence. With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they themselves will soon be constituents. They will have to live under and abide by the laws they created while in office. They’ll have less time in office to develop money ties to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby weakening the threat of lobbyists being able to influence legislation.
Candidates spend an astronomical amount of money trying to outdo the competition and get the attention of voters. Today so much competes for our attention that we have become uninterested, often feeling like our vote or opinions don’t matter or make much of a difference. By setting spending limits and giving candidates an even playing field it might put the focus on political issues rather than political relationships. Were supposed to elect candidates to represent us based on how they plan to help this country out. Spending limits could
The UK’s current democratic rule has been successful for a long period of time and changes in the constitution come about because of democratic pressure from the public. For example, the power of the House of Lords was reduced through the Parliament Acts. Another reason against codifying the UK’s constitution is that the documents would become legalistic. This is an issue as it would only be understood by lawyers and judges and not by the public who have significantly less political knowledge. As the UK doesn't have a written constitution then government decisions that are backed by parliament cannot be over turned by the judiciary, this again stops the constitution being reflective of the
“Han Feizi contends that political philosophy is a waste of time. A ruler should promulgate laws, punish wrongdoers, and reward the good. Order and discipline will follow. Is this correct? Why do you agree (or disagree) with it?” Thomas A. Williamson III Introduction to Political Theory MWF 1:00-1:50 pm Dr. Ledgister Due March 2, 2007 To understand Han Feizi’s view on political philosophy, his background must be taken into careful consideration.
The system arose gradually as states began to feel that the previous method of allowing party officials to decide was undemocratic in a modern society. That the current system is democratic and encourages public participation in politics is a particular strength of primaries. Adjoined to this is that it places no restrictions on who can stand, however, despite its benefits many people have criticised the system and are pressing for its reform. Emphasising the huge costs, frontloading and regionalisation of primaries, critics state that for all its claims to be democratic it prohibits the candidates from competing on an equal level. Equally the low levels of turnout in primaries suggest that many people are not interested in the primaries and raises questions over the legitimacy of any winner.
In the example of Halliburton, the author accounts the many ways that the military is aided such as equipment, food, logistics, construction, etc. Of course, this outsource contracting comes at a cost to the military. Chatterjee tries to convey in his book that this cost is much too high. Throughout “Haliburton's Army,” many examples of greed and corruption are cited. By displaying this collection of extensive research, the author hopes to communicate to the reader that the efforts of Halliburton are deleterious in a multitude of ways, and that its contract with the military needs to be stopped.
Money shows that a country has power, but if the nation does not have enough, it is vulnerable to threats from other nations. George Washington advised his successors by telling them of what could happen if they did not find a way to make money. He states in his Farewell Address, “…bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant….” He knew that the government had to come up with a way to tax the citizens in order to pay off debt, but should also make sure not to overtax the people. Washington’s was concerned about the war debts America owed after borrowing a lot of money from allied countries to support the military. The wars with Afghanistan and Iraq caused the U.S. to be in severe debt even after former presidents managed to balance the budget.
To rid out economy of the penny, the government would first needed to confront a public greatly in favor of preserving the penny. As indicated by Source E, a poll by the prestigious Harris group, public opinion shows a strong desire to keep the penny. Not only in removing the penny would need the census of two-thirds the population of these view, but also the physical wealth needed to fund for such costly and logistically near-impossible change. As shown in source A, state economies that depend on penny production for continued prosperity, such as Tennessee, would suffer economic adversity if this was to be amended. In the end, the benefits to be reaped by ending the penny are not worth the investment involved.
Yet that chaos in not the same as now, therefore the constitution must be interpreted loosely in a way that it fits society nowadays. Loose construction is based on the idea that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen what the world would be like in the 21st Century, and that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of historic and societal change. Loose construction allows the government to expand powers that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution as long as these powers are not specifically prohibited. Society changed from day to day and the country has to be ready for when changes are made. If powers are not outlined in the constitution, then it is up to the government (courts, judges, etc.)
Referendums offer the general public a choice, they are not only good for helping the public feel more involved but they are good for deciding important decisions such as changes to the constitution. Referendums help the politicians to know what the public wants and they help the public to voice their opinions on major issues. Referendums also stop the government from having so much power, and therefore maintains a democratic system as there is less chance of having a dictatorship. If there is an issue which divides parties’ on key issues which affect the public the public can have their say. If this is “a government of the people” then there should have been a referendum on tuition fees as this was a controversial subject that affected a lot of people.