Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: Members of the House must be American citizens for seven years.
Change: They must be an American citizen for at least ten years.
I infer that the Founding Fathers created this clause because then, after living in America for a decent amount of time would understand American government better. This proposition offers both positive and negative effects. One of the positive effects is that after a decade of living in America would have an even stronger understanding and experience with the government ways. They would be wiser, and play an important role in the House. There are some negative effects to this new change, also. The member would have to wait a longer time to be elected into the government, and by then, they're ideas might have been already taken by another member. Also, the member might only be staying in America for so long, depending on the job to give them a chance to create a home here. If they have to wait longer than usual, they might have to leave America again to return to their previous home country. There are some examples of this today. One is that you must be born in America to become president. Another, is that living in America for a long period time opens up more opportunities. To show that this may be a plausible change, more experience with the ways of government would better their working; there would be less mistakes made during their term. I personally don't think that this is a good idea, because the longer waiting could cause tyranny.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1: Members of the House are elected every two years by the people.
Change: Elected every four years.
I infer that the Founding Fathers passed this item so that the power belongs to the people. There are both positive and negative effects to this change. Positively, the members already elected and working would have a longer term, which could help them money wise. Also, they have more time for new ideas, projects, and solutions that might not be completed with the new round of members. Negative effects include that other members would have to wait longer to run and be elected for a spot in the House. This change is similar to the clause that states that members in the Senate must wait at least nine years living in America before their term. To prove this is plausible, consider the following; the previous members, before more are elected, will have more time to work and produce new ideas to help Congress. I support this change because I think that it would be better to keep the members in term for a longer time so that they could possibly come up with and start new projects that are economically more efficient to the government.
Change: They must be an American citizen for at least ten years.
I infer that the Founding Fathers created this clause because then, after living in America for a decent amount of time would understand American government better. This proposition offers both positive and negative effects. One of the positive effects is that after a decade of living in America would have an even stronger understanding and experience with the government ways. They would be wiser, and play an important role in the House. There are some negative effects to this new change, also. The member would have to wait a longer time to be elected into the government, and by then, they're ideas might have been already taken by another member. Also, the member might only be staying in America for so long, depending on the job to give them a chance to create a home here. If they have to wait longer than usual, they might have to leave America again to return to their previous home country. There are some examples of this today. One is that you must be born in America to become president. Another, is that living in America for a long period time opens up more opportunities. To show that this may be a plausible change, more experience with the ways of government would better their working; there would be less mistakes made during their term. I personally don't think that this is a good idea, because the longer waiting could cause tyranny.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1: Members of the House are elected every two years by the people.
Change: Elected every four years.
I infer that the Founding Fathers passed this item so that the power belongs to the people. There are both positive and negative effects to this change. Positively, the members already elected and working would have a longer term, which could help them money wise. Also, they have more time for new ideas, projects, and solutions that might not be completed with the new round of members. Negative effects include that other members would have to wait longer to run and be elected for a spot in the House. This change is similar to the clause that states that members in the Senate must wait at least nine years living in America before their term. To prove this is plausible, consider the following; the previous members, before more are elected, will have more time to work and produce new ideas to help Congress. I support this change because I think that it would be better to keep the members in term for a longer time so that they could possibly come up with and start new projects that are economically more efficient to the government.