The 20th and 22nd Amendment: H. Res. 614
In the original Constitution, there was not an amendment stating how long the President could serve in office. The date of inauguration was different than it is today. The Father of our Country, George Washington would become our first President and the first to serve two terms in office. He took his oath of office on April 30, 1789.
The purpose of the 20th amendment was to eliminate the lame duck administration. This simply means that in the 17th century too much time elapsed after a President was sworn into office. It was to also eliminate the four months the nation had to wait to have a Commander in Chief. “The purpose of the amendment was to shorten the time for the elected officials to actually …show more content…
Supporters of this amendment, however believe it prevents political stagnation. As times changed, allowing a new president to step in, the people felt they would see beneficial changes and a new perspective on political issues. To this day there are pros and cons to this controversial amendment.
The pros of the amendment are a long term presidency would meet with the needs of the people. They would be familiar and comfortable with a president they trusted and liked. The cons were that people felt a president that stayed in office longer than eight years would be subjected to more scandal and a loss of interest in their campaign.
As these two amendments were proposed and ratified by Congress, they have a great bearing on how the country is run today. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that when a Congress member dies, they are replaced in a timely manner. Take Congressman Scalia for example. President Obama is taking his time in replacing him because it is an election year and making sure the right man for the job is not something he has much time to do. In H. Res. 615-114th Congress (2015-2016), Congress is “Expressing support for the Senate regarding the importance of selecting a Supreme Court Justice, and urging the Senate to only consider a nominee who will uphold the integrity of the Constitution in judicial decision” (Library of
In the original Constitution, there was not an amendment stating how long the President could serve in office. The date of inauguration was different than it is today. The Father of our Country, George Washington would become our first President and the first to serve two terms in office. He took his oath of office on April 30, 1789.
The purpose of the 20th amendment was to eliminate the lame duck administration. This simply means that in the 17th century too much time elapsed after a President was sworn into office. It was to also eliminate the four months the nation had to wait to have a Commander in Chief. “The purpose of the amendment was to shorten the time for the elected officials to actually …show more content…
Supporters of this amendment, however believe it prevents political stagnation. As times changed, allowing a new president to step in, the people felt they would see beneficial changes and a new perspective on political issues. To this day there are pros and cons to this controversial amendment.
The pros of the amendment are a long term presidency would meet with the needs of the people. They would be familiar and comfortable with a president they trusted and liked. The cons were that people felt a president that stayed in office longer than eight years would be subjected to more scandal and a loss of interest in their campaign.
As these two amendments were proposed and ratified by Congress, they have a great bearing on how the country is run today. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that when a Congress member dies, they are replaced in a timely manner. Take Congressman Scalia for example. President Obama is taking his time in replacing him because it is an election year and making sure the right man for the job is not something he has much time to do. In H. Res. 615-114th Congress (2015-2016), Congress is “Expressing support for the Senate regarding the importance of selecting a Supreme Court Justice, and urging the Senate to only consider a nominee who will uphold the integrity of the Constitution in judicial decision” (Library of