Should the Texas Legislature continue to serve as a part-time lawmaking body, only meeting in regular sessions for 140 days every two years, or should it change to a full-time body meeting in regular sessions each year?
The Legislature should proceed with serving as a part-time lawmaking body. This is because it allows for consideration, addressing, and implementation of the fundamental issues affecting the state. A problem would come by only when the less important issues are ignored, or not given the priority they deserve. Besides that, I think meeting regularly would lead to numerous amendments of the law to facilitate the provision. Despite, the rigid and cumbersome upheavals that come with amending the law, it would still have to be subjected to the people for approval; hence, setting up more complications. The period during which the congressional members meet provides an opportunity for issues to resolve themselves. In that case, the most important and pressing ones receive more attention and are taken care of urgently.
In opposition of the issue of having numerous sessions, the smaller issues would flood the legislature's attention and could result to interfering with the law making process. The less important ones would overrun more crucial issues due to an increase in the amount of time required to solve them thereby disrupting the overall process. In my opinion, numerous meetings would escalate the budget: an idea that the state has for a while upheld and seems a viable argument. I think there is no need of expanding the government. Instead, more focus should be on limiting it. It would lead to agile development and the creation of laws that would be left to undertake and guide their operations. Finally, it would facilitate the concept of a limited government.
The Texas governor is elected to a four-year term, and there are no limits on how many terms or years one person can serve as the state's chief executive. Should term limit be implemented to restrict the total number of terms or years one can serve as the Texas governor?
Term limits should be put in place to regulate the duration which a person can lead as a governor of the state. This is because it allows for the exercise of democracy: a more suitable and qualified candidate can apply for the position to undertake the mandate. It would be in unison with other offices and positions such as the presidency and state offices that have provisions for time limits to serve. Giving room for the leader to stay in office for as long as he wants would lead to maintenance of the status quo. No new ideas and policies would come on board to benefit the state and enhance improvement of the welfare of the citizens. Alternative ways of conducting various activities would come by as a result of curbing the serving period and increase efficiency and effectiveness.
Despite, the suitability of another candidate, chances may be slim for them to get into the position. As a result, citizens who are not ready to embrace change, and who prefer to stick to the old ways of doing things, would not resonate well with a new leader. Therefore, I think failure to enforce time limits would result to the governor maintaining the position for the duration of his choice. A dictatorial scenario might come by which may not be healthy for the achievement of set targets and goals. Thereby, I believe the need for the establishment of time frames is important for the general good and welfare of the state.
Need a paper on the same topic?
We will write it for you from scratch!
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:
- Yahoo Human Resources
- What are the main points in the article?
- Leadership in nursing essay
- Assessment systems
- Risk Management
- Ways of Listening
- Significant Educational Opportunity
- THE NECKLACE RESEARCH
- Pathophysiology of Seizures
- Business Paper Example
- Vice President of Operations
- HR Value Adding Chain