More than two terms for US President? (22nd Amendment)

Sava · June 2, 2003, 19:30

This is an issue in the media that I'm seeing a lot lately. Forgive me if there is a thread on this already. What do you guys think of this issue? Should there be a two-term/10 year limit on the presidency? IIRC one can only be elected twice but can be president for 10 years (assuming one takes office in the last two years as vice pres).

I disagree with term limits. But I also have other ideas on how I'd like to see the executive branch run.

My plan:
no term limits
elections every 5 years
the option for a "no-confidence" vote at any time (activated by either the Supreme Court or the Congress... I haven't formulated exactly how)

Personally, I think the current discussion has more to do with the Democracts being desperate to get a winner. I think the DNC is scared that they don't have a Bush-beater, and the one man they'd like is the one man who can't get elected now.

Giancarlo · June 2, 2003, 19:35

I want everything to remain the way it is. As some say "If it ain't broke, don't try fix it."

The democrats don't have anybody. Not one person I see that even stands a chance against an incumbent.

Inverse Icarus · June 2, 2003, 19:37

Clinton wants them removed, and instead have "2 CONSECUTIVE terms".

and thats bill, not the wh0re.

Giancarlo · June 2, 2003, 19:38

Bill only wants that so he can try to run again. I had enough of his stupid face and some old nonsense. He reminds me of Felipe Gonzalez. Gone with the wind!

Frankychan · June 2, 2003, 19:42

Nope. They should keep the term limits for president.

Additionally, they should have term limits for Congressmen and women.

....just look at Strom Thurmon (he's that really really old guy that retired).....or Trent Lott (via Segregation)

Lawrence of Arabia · June 2, 2003, 19:45

No limit. People will vote out the president if his ratings fall far enough. There is not need to artificially keep him from running again.

Imran Siddiqui · June 2, 2003, 19:45

Quote:

and thats bill, not the wh0re.

No, I don't think the 22nd Amendment should be repealed. You don't want a President to be in power for 30 years, even if people keep voting for him, IMO. One reason is you really get alienated from the people when you spend all that time in Washington. 2nd, the President as head of state and head of government shouldn't be concentrated in one man for too long... as they say power corrupts. Eight years corrupts enough, imagine 24?

Sava · June 2, 2003, 19:45

frankychan -- you assume that South Carolina voters would have voted someone more intelligent... which I doubt

same with Lott and Mississippi

I think that the 22nd amendment is anti-democratic (not the party, but the political system) because it limits the people to who they can choose.

Lawrence of Arabia · June 2, 2003, 19:48

Quote:

No, I don't think the 22nd Amendment should be repealed. You don't want a President to be in power for 30 years, even if people keep voting for him, IMO. One reason is you really get alienated from the people when you spend all that time in Washington. 2nd, the President as head of state and head of government shouldn't be concentrated in one man for too long... as they say power corrupts. Eight years corrupts enough, imagine 24?

The people should be able to choose that. They dont need someone to tell them that a president has become corrupt or out of touch.

Worthingtons · June 2, 2003, 19:48

i believe it should be abolished as there are some exceptional presidents like Clinton for example who could last longer

Giancarlo · June 2, 2003, 19:50

Clinton was a terrible president.

Lawrence of Arabia · June 2, 2003, 19:51

not as bad as bush

*End Is Forever* · June 2, 2003, 19:52

I'm absolutely opposed to term limits. It's for the electorate and the electorate only to decide whether somebody is up to the job.

Imran Siddiqui · June 2, 2003, 19:52

Quote:

The people should be able to choose that. They dont need someone to tell them that a president has become corrupt or out of touch.

The people aren't smart enough to know that... look who they elect to Congress

.

Quote:

i believe it should be abolished as there are some exceptional presidents like Clinton for example who could last longer

I always thought the funniest part of this statement is that Clinton probably wouldn't have become President if the 22nd was abolished (Reagan would have easily won Term #3 and #4, then stepped aside and Bush I would have faced another Democrat in '96).

The Templar · June 2, 2003, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Bill only wants that so he can try to run again. I had enough of his stupid face and some old nonsense. He reminds me of Felipe Gonzalez. Gone with the wind!

Yes, yes. We're all tired of a decade of peace and prosperity - that same old nonsense.

Sava, I would argue that the cabinet should be strengthened. Say independently elected, or irremovable without the consent of the senate.

Correspondingly, a weakened president who acts more as a facilitator in managing the allocation of resources between the cabinet (but doesn't have ultimate say).

One reason I say this is because of the horrible political situation in the US. All but the most economically libertarian-minded chumps favor strong environmental protections. This way the republicans could huff and puff about national security all they wanted and we'd still get a green as head of the EPA - and one that couldn't be shut down by the president. Imagine, Ralph Nader as elected head of the EPA - unbuyable by big pollution.

Moreover, it would be more democratic. The will of the people can be better represented by dividing executive functions up.

oedo · June 2, 2003, 19:54

after 16 years Kohl I can certainly say that 8 or 10 years in power are enough. he even was a good chancellor, though. but enough is enough.

DinoDoc · June 2, 2003, 19:55

Quote:

More than two terms for US President?

Would you have liked Reagan for another four years?

The Templar · June 2, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I always thought the funniest part of this statement is that Clinton probably wouldn't have become President if the 22nd was abolished (Reagan would have easily won Term #3 and #4, then stepped aside and Bush I would have faced another Democrat in '96).

Maybe, but by term #4 Reagan would have been to senile to find the oval office - let alone run it.

Lorizael · June 2, 2003, 19:56

Fez, and you say Sava is bad!

Now onto real comments. The argument that we wouldn't want thirty year presidents doesn't really hold up because for most of our history there were no term limits, and never did a president stay in office that long.

FDR was in the longest, and he died. Oh yah, presidents get old and die. Most wouldn't want to be in office that long, even if they could.

The only reason Congressmembers get reelected so often is because a huge amount of PAC money goes to incumbents (candidate with the most money usually wins).

If you make elections a bit more fair when it comes to raising money, odds are there the reelection rate will drop. You do the same thing with the presidency, and there will never be thirty year presidents.

Imran Siddiqui · June 2, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Sava, I would argue that the cabinet should be strengthened. Say independently elected, or irremovable without the consent of the senate.

Sorry, I had to smile at this... because this was the reason President Johnson was impeached... he fired a cabinet member without consulting the Senate (as the new law said he must).

Of course your proposal wouldn't pass by Amendment

. It's always been assumed that executive branch departments were under the control of the President, because the President is the only executive and these positions were created and appointed by him to help him do his job

.

*End Is Forever* · June 2, 2003, 19:57

Personally I'd argue it was absurd to rest the entire executive branch on the shoulders of one man but then what do I know...?

Sava · June 2, 2003, 19:57

Good points Templar. I would agree that I think the executive cabinet should be elected in that manner.

Sava · June 2, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Personally I'd argue it was absurd to rest the entire executive branch on the shoulders of one man but then what do I know...?

I also agree.

Imran: If you are concerned with power corrupting, maybe we should limit the power of the executive branch or break it up; instead of limit the power of the people to choose.

Imran Siddiqui · June 2, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

most of our history there were no term limits, and never did a president stay in office that long.

That is because there was an IMPLIED term limit. President's prior to FDR left after two terms because Washington had done it and that was the way it should be done (this is exactly the reason why Grant did not seek a 3rd term... that he would have easily won, btw).

DinoDoc · June 2, 2003, 19:58

As an aside, I kind of hope he keeps making statements like this. He's sucking up all the O2 from the current Dem candidates.

Nubclear · June 2, 2003, 19:58

God no!!

Imagine......30+ more years of BUSH

But by then, China will have risen and brushed us off....

Jon Miller · June 2, 2003, 19:59

I don't want Bush to be president for more than 8 years and I don't trust the Dems to come up with winners so yes, the current rules are a good thing

actually, limiting to one termmight be good

Jon Miller

Victor Galis · June 2, 2003, 19:59

Term limits are good, despite the fact that I would have preffered Clinton to both Gore and Bush. Incumbents have a lot of advantages in running for reelection.

Personally, I think they should relax the age and being born in the US limitations on the office.

*End Is Forever* · June 2, 2003, 19:59

Quote:

2nd, the President as head of state and head of government shouldn't be concentrated in one man for too long... as they say power corrupts. Eight years corrupts enough, imagine 24?

Imran, surely if you believe this you'll agree that it's absurd to elect a single man as the entire executive?

Lorizael · June 2, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

most of our history there were no term limits, and never did a president stay in office that long.

That is because there was an IMPLIED term limit. President's prior to FDR left after two terms because Washington had done it and that was the way it should be done (this is exactly the reason why Grant did not seek a 3rd term... that he would have easily won, btw).

I know that, but only one president has broken that implied term limit. I don't think that's enough of a precedence to totally destroy the limit.