Mission Impossible Argumentative Essay

Our Founding Fathers, in drafting the Constitution, intended to limit the power of one branch of government over the others. Some may say, they have failed, while others may say they have succeeded. It has succeeded in ensuring that a civilian elected by the people would govern the nation, and not a king nor queen. But, some say it has failed to clearly enumerate how long Supreme Court Justices should stay on the bench, and that today, is the cause of a lot of political and social debates. While the idea of somebody being in a position for as long as they choose seem fairly preposterous, it does have some merit and some legal foundations in the very document we hail as sacred. While I do believe the court could use some polarization, age, race, and education wise, I do condemn the motives behind the current callings for judicial term limits. It seems fairly hypocritical, doesn’t it? Law makers will not impose term limit of themselves, nor restrict colleges from offering tenure, which is also a “for life” position, but would go after the highest court of the land, when it rules against or for a law.

Mission Impossible, by Ted Cruise There is a facet of Senator Cruz’s plan that reminds me of the action packed movies, Mission Impossible starring actor Tom Cruise, in which daring and nearly impossible missions take place. Changing the Constitution is …show more content…
That entails that one group will be happy and the other, very angry, and will even engage in some regrettable acts while seeking vengeance. The answer is not to take away the Court’s authority to hear cases that are highly inflammatory but rather to allow and let it hear such cases. Attempting to restrain the court from hearing such cases constitutes in itself, abuse of power from the legislative branch. We now wonder, can the court itself refuse to hear such cases? Absolutely