Should Presidential Term Limits be Removed?

[Hotasianchick]

Would that mean that Obama would be president for life cause no matter how the country is doing the press would support him and he would spend 85% of his campaign painting the opposition as threat to humanity... How about no ... 4 yrs sounds better than 8 ... if anything i think we should fire them more often and maybe they will do what we pay them to do .

[Giants41]

No.
/10char

[Laize]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...s/d113HR.lst::


http://www.examiner.com/article/pres...es-term-limits

If this gets past Congress, I don't imagine a majorly Democratic Senate would block this. I don't even know what to say.

Civics classes must have taken a turn for the worst.

Congress can't repeal a damned Amendment. This is a proposal for an amendment which must be sent to, and ratified by, the individual state legislatures. 3/4 of them to be exact.

And presidents serving more than 2 terms isn't the worst thing in the world as long as the elections are fair.

Very few presidents (2, if I remember correctly) managed to serve more than 2 terms even before the amendment was passed.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 08:20 AM ----------

Before we worry about term-limits why don't we address the two-party system?

When the two-party system, namely the Republicans and Democrats, willingly open up the elections to other parties, I will consider other options such as limit-removal. As it stands, with current law, most states won't let you vote in the primaries if you are anything other than Repub or Dem. Until such time as REAL options are made available I will not, and can not, agree to the idea of letting one of two corrupt parties have unlimited chances to screw the country up.

The two-party system is, believe it or not, beneficial to the government.

Ideological polarization is less likely with a two-party system. You don't wind up with fostered excess regionalism and you're more likely to compromise on some views you find less important in favor of those you do.

In contrast, here's a list of political parties in India. They have an overabundance of regional parties and said regions will, generally, only pick representatives who fit their definition of perfect.

Their political forum is such a clusterfuck that the country is referred to as a functional anarchy.

So despite your gripes with the two-party system, rest assured it could be far worse.

[Shamanberry]

Getting 2/3 of either house to agree on something is going to be close to impossible at this point, because both sides are dead-set on blocking any sort of legislation proposed by the other side. If the democrats propose it right now, they'd be painted by the republicans and the republican wing of the press as trying to get Obama in as president for life. If the next Republican president is someone that could potentially serve 3+ terms and the republicans were to propose it then, the democrats and their pet press outlets would do the same.

Either way, I doubt it'd be proposed seriously (with full press coverage and push that would be required to get it through), largely because if the topic of term limits comes up, the topic of congressional term limits tends to come up -- and if there's anything that both parties can agree with, it's that neither of them want people to pay too much attention to that.

[Prokne]

Civics classes must have taken a turn for the worst.

Congress can't repeal a damned Amendment. This is a proposal for an amendment which must be sent to, and ratified by, the individual state legislatures. 3/4 of them to be exact.

Amendments have to be passed by the house and senate before being sent to the states to be ratified. Nothing he said was wrong, except that the senate is part of congress.

[Grummgug]

Because it would shift the focus away from work and towards reelection. Second terms are typically the periods in office where presidents are free to really vocalize their ideals, to push for change and shake the pot. Look at Clinton, or Lincoln... their second terms were marked by no longer having to appeal to things such as special interest groups. It is, in fact, the same reason why I am for term limits for congressman, because ultimately a lack of term limits makes a politician always keep one eye on the horizen.

That's not true. US Presidents typically achieve their biggest policy goals in their first 2 years. That's really their honeymoon period, more than just the 100 days. The first two years are where they are still considered a freshly-minted president, and haven't suffered the typical "shellacking" at the midterm elections yet. After getting re-elected, they may enjoy a smaller mandate, but the clock is already ticking on them becoming a lame-duck, which can happen as quickly as 3-4 months after their second inaugural. Most presidents focus on foreign policy in their final 2 years of their second term, because they are too much of a lame-duck to have much influence over domestic policy.

Obama had Obamacare in his first two years. He burned his entire mandate on that. The backlash of passing Obamacare was getting shellacked in the 2010 midterms, which saw the GOP win the House. Obama won a close victory in 2012. He doesn't have much of a mandate going into his second term. It probably won't be long before he focuses on foreign policy.

Here are the major policy accomplishments of each president, and most were in the first two years of their presidency:

Obama: Obamacare
Bush: War on Terror
Clinton: Omnibus Tax Increase
Bush: "No new taxes" tax increase, Desert Storm
Reagan: 1981 tax cut
Carter: Creation of the Department of Energy. Deregulation of the airline, trucking, rail, communications, and finance industries.
Ford: Pardon of Nixon
Nixon: Establishing relations with China. Getting the US out of Vietnam (1973 - outside of the first two years)
LBJ: Great Society, Immigration Act.
Kennedy: man on the moon speech, bay of pigs, cuban missile crisis

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 12:28 AM ----------

Getting 2/3 of either house to agree on something is going to be close to impossible at this point, because both sides are dead-set on blocking any sort of legislation proposed by the other side.

Technically that's not true.

The truth is, the ONLY time any sort of major legislation gets passed is when one side has a supermajority. At least until Obamacare. Obama and the democrats were the first to employ the nuclear option to pass major legislation (Obamacare), because they had lost their supermajority. This is also why the GOP pledges to wield the nuclear option to repeal Obamacare the second any republican becomes president. Tit for tat. If democrats don't like that reality, they shouldn't have passed it that way.

[Wells]

In contrast, here's a list of political parties in India. They have an overabundance of regional parties and said regions will, generally, only pick representatives who fit their definition of perfect.

Their political forum is such a clusterfuck that the country is referred to as a functional anarchy.

Well its not like India hasn't been ungovernable for centuries regardless of their system.

[javen]

Although I'm not American myself I have to say it makes no sense to restrict someone from being president if they have already been in for two terms.
If they can do their job as president and people like what he or she does why should they be incapable of running for a third term or as many terms as the people want?

Term limits were likely originally imposed to prevent the emergence of another monarchy. Now, I like to think that term limits ensure that issues will continue to be debated, iterated, and, hopefully, improved. Technically, even after a president is finished with their terms, they're still allowed to be active in politics, just not the position of commander-in-chief.

It's also why I think term limits should be imposed on senators and representatives. So many run unopposed, it's basically a lifetime appointment, which causes many to become complacent.

[solvexx]

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Lincoln, Kennedy, Grover Cleveland. 5 Smart and capable presidents. Imho, there should be a 2-3 term limit on congress. Being a politician wasn't supposed to be a career, it was supposed to be a civic duty. It's the same way it was with the Greek Senate, which is what our Congress was modeled after. (I mean, we even have an entire HOUSE called the Senate.)

It's modelled off of the English upper and lower houses actually.

[Defengar]

Clinton? Granted I was a youngster at the time so I wasn't paying close attention, but from what I remember and what I've read, he did a pretty good job right up until we impeached him for getting a little action.

I wonder if we would've impeached Kennedy, dude slept with other women as often as he slept with his wife.

Not impeached for that, but for a variety of other things, like the backroom deals he made with the russians concerning the cuban missile crises and stupid shit like the bay of pigs disaster. He also didn't even live through his first term, so we have no idea what he would have been like at the end of his presidential career.

[Mukki]

Civics classes must have taken a turn for the worst.

Congress can't repeal a damned Amendment. This is a proposal for an amendment which must be sent to, and ratified by, the individual state legislatures. 3/4 of them to be exact.

And presidents serving more than 2 terms isn't the worst thing in the world as long as the elections are fair.

Very few presidents (2, if I remember correctly) managed to serve more than 2 terms even before the amendment was passed.

If you're going to throw out back-handed insults over an attempt to start a constructive discussion, I'd recommend not making an even more blatant mistake.
FDR was the only president to serve more than two terms. He was elected to four terms, but died in the beginning of the fourth.

The entire point of this thread is to start a discussion on the actual principle of term limits and hopefully generate some interest into the kinds of resolutions being proposed by our representatives. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

[Seranthor]

2 words.
Bill....
Clinton...

Your opinions differ from mine.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 06:24 AM ----------

Clinton? Granted I was a youngster at the time so I wasn't paying close attention, but from what I remember and what I've read, he did a pretty good job right up until we impeached him for getting a little action.

I wonder if we would've impeached Kennedy, dude slept with other women as often as he slept with his wife.

He didn't get impeached for 'getting a little action'... he got impeached for lying to Congress about it.... HUGE difference... I never carried that he was getting action.... Lying under oath to Congress/Court is a felony. Kennedy never lied to Congress about his 'action'

[Deleted]

A thousand times to no to this. No other country in the world would want someone from another country running theirs. I guarantee it.

Well its a public vote isn't it? What if an immigrant could become president? The public would still have voted for him/her, if the public wouldn't want an immigrant president, then they won't vote for him/her

No a thousand times over. You remove term limits and we become a potential monarchy in the United States. On top of that, the last thing this country needs is even the possibility of a 3rd term under Barack Obama.

Lol, because wanting to progress a country is such a bad idea amiright?

[PACOX]

No, no, no, no.

Biggest issue is that the president isn't elected by popular vote. So that means the EC could keep voting in the same guy.

I wouldn't mind just have one 6 year term. A first term president has to walk on egg shells. They get 2 years worth of real work done, tops. The rest of the time they are just pandering to voters. A presidents real term is if they make it to their second one (or they only plan to do one, which is unlikely). 1 term, years. The only thing they should be worried about is doing their job because their is no reelection. 2 term presidents only do 6 years worth of work anyway.

[DeltrusDisc]

No. The US has enough trouble with no term limits for congressmen.

This. I'd like to see Congressmen all limited just as much.

[Laize]

If you're going to throw out back-handed insults over an attempt to start a constructive discussion, I'd recommend not making an even more blatant mistake.
FDR was the only president to serve more than two terms. He was elected to four terms, but died in the beginning of the fourth.

The entire point of this thread is to start a discussion on the actual principle of term limits and hopefully generate some interest into the kinds of resolutions being proposed by our representatives. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

You're right about presidential terms. I thought Washington served 3 terms but he was simply courted for a 3rd and never ran. It was an honest mistake.

That's a trivial historic fact, however. Not realizing that Congress doesn't have the authority to amend the Constitution is a serious mistake. You can't predicate a discussion on the idea that there's a possibility that Congress can do this.

[Reeve]

Term limits are good, but I'd like to see the presidential term extended to 6 years. Also, I'd like to see congressional term limits with longer terms too, so that congressmen don't have to spend 2/3 of their time fundraising for the next campaign.

[Wildtree]

Here's my take.....

Term limit for Presidents ought to be lifted. It's more positive than negative. No horrible President would survive past 2 terms.
What's needed would be at least a third political force. President should be appointed by the majority of the Congress, and not elected separately.
The performance of any given President can only be as good as the decision power of the party he belongs to is.
We are going through exactly such times at the moment. The power isn't there, for the President to back his decisions. No matter how good they would be, the opposing side shuts him down. If that power doesn't shift to either side, the next President will have the very same problem to deal with. No matter from what Party he/she comes.
As it is, the country basically cannot be governed.
Theoretically the President could step down, or re-elections could be called out. Other countries can and do resort to such measures, because they do have more than 2 political forces and within their congress the abilities for new coalitions and majority building is possible.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 11:24 AM ----------

Term limits are good, but I'd like to see the presidential term extended to 6 years. Also, I'd like to see congressional term limits with longer terms too, so that congressmen don't have to spend 2/3 of their time fundraising for the next campaign.

That's a big problem and very true words...

Current situation for Presidents..
Year 1. Getting into the loop. Picking up where the old guy left off.
Year 2. Getting things started and moving... Being productive. But with caution, we have state level elections too...
Year 3. Working on things from year 2, with even more caution, the next term is nearing.. and fund raising for just that..
Year 4: 2/3 of the year are dominated by campaigning...

Basically, no 1 term President can ever be effective at all.
Only 2 term Presidents can go all out.... of course again.... with some limitations regarding re-election of their party next time around,

[TreezusSaves]

They should make handheld nuclear weapons legal to own and sell, and then make murder legal for a couple of years.

Because that is just as silly as the rest of this debate.

[Wildtree]

They should make handheld nuclear weapons legal to own and sell, and then make murder legal for a couple of years.

Because that is just as silly as the rest of this debate.

And why would that be silly? The current handling is rather a custom. And only because a former President refused to take up a third term, all others (for the most part) followed suit out of respect for his persona.