Should the 22nd amendment be amended/scrapped

[WorldWatcher]

Which is?

Here is an odd way I’d like things to work. We don't have a term limits problem, we have an incumbency problem. Now bear with me here.

#1 No elected official in the Congress or the President is eligible for election in any other Federal elected position until at least 1 year has passed from the end of their current or 1 year after leaving their current federally elected position through retirement, resignation, or expulsion.

#2 No elected official may campaign or raise campaign funds while holding any federally elected office.
.
.
.
.
There would be no term limits on Presidents or members of Congress, however no individual may serve consecutive terms in any federal elected position even if the positions are different.

That means the President and members of Congress must leave the White House and Congress for at least 1 year before they can run for election again.

There would be no “incumbent” advantage as each seat starts with a clean slate.

Maybe if Presidents and members of Congress were more concerned about doing their jobs instead of raising campaign funds on the taxpayers time and running for reelection they would perform better. Get elected, do your job, leave and run again after a break on your own time.

WW

 

[ActionJackson]

If the US people want the same president for more than 2 terms, then should the 22nd Amendment be scrapped/amended?

The Biden Cult has already scrapped the entire Constitution (for the most part) so the point is moot.

 

[Blaster]

If the US people want the same president for more than 2 terms, then should the 22nd Amendment be scrapped/amended?

How about just one 8 year term for President and members of Congress?

 

[Papageorgio]

If the US people want the same president for more than 2 terms, then should the 22nd Amendment be scrapped/amended?

Yes, we need to expand the term limits to include Congress.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How about just one 8 year term for President and members of Congress?

No thanks, it could leave one party in power for way to long. (Which could be DEM or GOP.) The people should be able to repopulate offices on a more frequent basis.

Or the other option is the law that sets a single 8 year term allows for the right of citizens to conduct a recall election for any office covered. (Currently there are no recall laws which covers Congress and the President.) Say a 10% signature drive based on total votes from the last election triggers a mandatory recall vote within 90 days. If the state doesn't conduct a such a vote, the individual is deemed ineligible and removed from congress. For President recall call it a 10% signature requirement in at least 1/2 of the states.

WW

 

[westwall]

If the US people want the same president for more than 2 terms, then should the 22nd Amendment be scrapped/amended?

Hell no. Two and out. We need to get completely rid of career politicians as well.

Term limits for every political office.

 

[Innocynioc]

No. If a president held the office for more than two terms he would be able to accumulate too much power through appointments, patronage and the such. The 22nd serves a valid and essential purpose.

 

[eagle1462010]

NO

 

[JoeB131]

or we need term limits for all elected offices

We have term limits. They are called "Elections".

 

[San Souci]

If the US people want the same president for more than 2 terms, then should the 22nd Amendment be scrapped/amended?

No. The Dems gave us the only Dictator for Life. FDR.

 

[Robert W]

No.

The reason why they passed the 22nd is because they didn't want a president staying in office until he died, which is pretty much what FDR did.

Without a 22nd Amendment, Reagan would have run for a third and maybe a fourth term, even though he was suffering from Alzheimers, perhaps as early as his second term.

Clinton would have run for additional terms even though he was dealing with heart issues by the mid-aughts.

Reagan was NOT suffering Alzheimer's when he was president. There is evidence that Biden is suffering Alzheimer's.

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan was NOT suffering Alzheimer's when he was president.

Actually, Reagan's son says he was.

Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's while president, says son

Son Ron Reagan's claim that Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's while in office leads to war of words with half brother Michael

www.theguardian.com

In it, Ron Reagan describes his growing sense of alarm over his father's mental condition, beginning as early as three years into his first term. He recalls the presidential debate with Walter Mondale on 7 October 1984.

"My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered," Ron Reagan writes.

 

[Robert W]

Actually, Reagan's son says he was.

Reagan's doctor says he was not suffering Alzheimer's.

 

[initforme]

How about just one 8 year term for President and members of Congress?

1 3 year term then out the door. Even 2 years. All the better.

 

[JoeB131]

1 3 year term then out the door. Even 2 years. All the better.

We have term limits... they are called "Elections".

 

[WorldWatcher]

We have term limits... they are called "Elections".

Problem is...

The amount of time the Congress Critters and the President spend on campaigning and raising money to campaign and pushing issues to raise money to campaign - all on the taxpayers dime when they are supposed to be doing their jobs.

Being the "incumbent" is a well recognized political advantage, there is no argument about that.

That's why I say we don't have a term limits problem, we have an incumbency problem.

WW

 

[Flash]

If you are so concerned about what the people want, we can start by scrapping the electoral college. That would seem to be a much better idea.

Once again you get it wrong Moon Bat. You never get anything right, do you? It must suck to be you, doesn't it?

The Electoral College is a great thing for this country. It helps to keep the goddamn dumbass welfare ghetto Negros and Illegals that breed like rabbits from having even more power than they already have.

 

[JoeB131]

Problem is...

The amount of time the Congress Critters and the President spend on campaigning and raising money to campaign and pushing issues to raise money to campaign - all on the taxpayers dime when they are supposed to be doing their jobs.

Being the "incumbent" is a well recognized political advantage, there is no argument about that.

That's why I say we don't have a term limits problem, we have an incumbency problem.

WW

Or we just realize that if someone is doing a good job, we like to keep him.

In the District in IL I grew up in, they just threw out the Democratic incumbent, Daniel Lipinski, after 16 years in office, and his father held the seat for 18 years before that.

Why? Because he no longer reflected the view of the people in the district, especially on the issue of abortion.

Now, when it came time to remap that district, the legislature essentially drew that district out of existence to create another Hispanic District and because the Commie Bernie candidate who threw Lipinsky out isn't one of theirs.

I think a much bigger problem is that most of the congressional seats aren't competitive. If you win the primary, you are in, and if you are only appealing to primary voters, you tend to get more radical candidates.

 

[JoeB131]

Once again you get it wrong Moon Bat. You never get anything right, do you? It must suck to be you, doesn't it?

The Electoral College is a great thing for this country. It helps to keep the goddamn dumbass welfare ghetto Negros and Illegals that breed like rabbits from having even more power than they already have.

So the electoral college is good because it disenfranchises people? This is your "logic"?

If the EC disenfranchised white people (which it might very well when enough Hispanics in Texas become citizens) would you be as for it?

 

[Flash]

So the electoral college is good because it disenfranchises people? This is your "logic"?

If the EC disenfranchised white people (which it might very well when enough Hispanics in Texas become citizens) would you be as for it?

You dumb shit. You are always confused about everything. We don't want these goddamn stupid ghetto welfare queens to have any more political power than they already have. They need to be "disenfranchised" . That just results in the country getting more fucked up than it already is.

Democracy sucks when the sorry ass majority finds out that they can use the government to steal from the minority. That can destroy a nation. You are just too stupid to understand that. Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that but Libtard idiots like you aren't.

The Electoral College was a compromise that enabled this country to get a Constitution. Of course you don't know that because being a dumbass uneducated Moon Bat you don't know any more about History than you know about Economics, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.