Pros And Cons Of Presidential Term Limits

743 Words3 Pages

Presidential Term Limits
As one of the most powerful titles in the world, presidential term limits will always be a center point of political arguments and it is my belief that the voters should be able to “write- in” a previous president after his “2-term (8 year) limit”. While proposals have been made over the years by many different people at different power levels within the government, the main goal was to keep a dictatorship from forming in America. Bryan Putney, Arthur Capper, Jeremy
Paul, and Stephen C. Erickson all felt the same about the fact that term limits need to be established, but differed on what the “term limit” should be.
Bryant Putney believed that term limits were needed to keep one faction or person from obtaining …show more content…

He sees the second presidential term is ineffective due to being plagued by scandal. Using historical facts along with former presidents such as Richard Nixon, Ronald
1
Stephen C. Erickson explains the pros and cons of having and not having term limits.
Erickson felt that not having term limits on all legislation -not just presidential terms- would eventually lead to special interests within the government. Stephen Erickson worked at the
College of William and Mary as a Doctorial Candidate in Early American History. Stephen uses former President James Madison to support his idea that the lack of term limitations would lead to corruption within the government. Former President James Madison talked about a rotation of offices, a coolness within the senate, and how the lack of limitations would lead to the rise in career politicians while making legislators live as citizens under their own laws.
Madison wanted to keep “Career Politicians” from holding a seat of power and becoming corrupt and wrote many speeches and papers regarding the subject.
As one of the most powerful appointed titles in the world, term limits will always be