Disagreeable Aspects of the Legislative,

Disagreeable Aspects of the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States sets out the term of a member of the House of Representatives at two years, and Section 3 sets out the term for Senators at six years. It can be argued that the Framers of the Constitution intended for Congressmen to serve their terms and return to their civilian lives. They did not intend for a class of politicians that return to their seats, term after term.

This situation is in need of change. One of the distinguishing features of our form of government is the interdependence of the three branches of government. This was born out of a distrust of government by the Framers. The one branch that they most distrusted and felt was most likely to take over the entire government was the legislative branch.

"In republican government,' Madison wrote, 'the legislative authority necessarily predominates.' It was in part to meet this problem that the Framers decided on two houses and made them responsible to different constituencies." Even in the terms of the two houses, we see this distrust. They staggered the terms in the Senate, rather than having all Senators elected at once. This was to prevent one group of people (they did not envision political parties) from gaining control of the Senate during one election.

Given their distrust of the legislative branch of government and their suspicions of government in general, it is very likely that the intention of the Framers was to have a Congressman serve their term and return to their civilian occupations. They did not intend for professional politicians to serve many terms, essentially making a career out of serving in one particular office. Had they foreseen this, it is likely they would have proposed some type of term limitation on the amount of time an individual could serve in one office.

In the House particularly, this abuse has led to a situation where the incumbent is regularly returned to office. Every two years, out of a total of 435 seats up for reelection, only a handful are in doubt. If the amount of terms that an individual can serve were to be limited, it would go far in restoring to government the integrity and the faith of the people.

The Framers of the Constitution intended for the judicial branch to act as a check on the power of the other two branches, but they did not anticipate that the judicial branch would take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench. Instead of following the constitution and interpreting it, they have added rights and privileges that may not have been originally intended. This is a situation that should not have been allowed to develop and should be rectified.

Section 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution states that, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Nowhere in this entire article does it spell out the power of the courts to declare laws of the legislature unconstitutional. It may be that the Framers intended for the courts to have this power, but they did not explicitly provide for it.

"There is little doubt that the Framers intended the Supreme Court to have the power to declare state legislation unconstitutional, but whether they intended to give it the same power over national legislation is not clear." Nowhere in the Constitution does it enunciate a right to privacy. This right is not included in the Bill of Rights. It may be that this right is desirable and something that most people would agree with, but it was not included by the Framers.

The first amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This provision has been the justification for entirely removing prayer from schools and the mention of God from public places. This may not have been the intention of the Framers. They were concerned that the government could not establish an official state religion, as had been done in many countries in Europe.

They did not intend to eliminate religion from public life. The problem with judicial activism is that it becomes very hard to stop once it begins. As stated, while most would agree that a right to privacy is desirable, what about other rights or privileges with which the majority would not agree. The Constitution was designed with a process to amend it as conditions change.

The Framers anticipated that from time to time it would become necessary to alter it or add to it, but they might the process difficult so that only those changes that had widespread support would be enacted. They did not anticipate that the judicial branch would bypass these checks and balances and change the Constitution without public debate. The current system of electing the President of the United States requires that the voters of each state vote for electors, and not directly for the President.

This system was devised by the Framers because they did not trust the people and because it was part of a compromise that would allow the small states to have more influence in presidential elections than would be possible if the election was decided based upon the popular vote. What the Framers did not anticipate is that the system would work in the opposite way, currently giving some states little or no decision in the outcome.

It is a cumbersome situation and it is time for the electoral college to be replaced with election by popular vote. When was the last time that a Presidential candidate visited Hawaii or Wyoming during the course of a presidential election? Why did Presidential Bush spend almost no money and little time in Texas, with its large number of electoral votes, during the 2000 and 2004 election? The answer.