Should we take away the term limit for a President?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Big Blue Machin, Jul 10, 2005.

  1. Big Blue Machin
    Offline

    Big Blue Machin Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Messages:
    260
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada eh?
    Ratings:
    +11
    I think we should, a President should run as long as he wants. A good example of this is Reagan. He would have won a third term :thup: if he wasn't limited to two terms. Clinton would have won another, god help us :puke3: . Bush would probably win a third term :clap1: , which is needed for the re-construction of Iraq and fighting the war on terrorism.
     
  2. ThomasPaine
    Offline

    ThomasPaine Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    I'm of two minds on this isssue so probably not the best for debate, but here goes. I'm for the 22nd Amendment as George Washington set the precedent and it is good for the country twofold; requiring a new chief executive at least every 8 years brings new leadership and vitality to the office; if a President cannot achieve their objectives in two terms they were either limited in vision or not generally supported in their positions by the electorate. I'm against the 22nd Amendment because it causes a second term President to be a lame duck politically after their reelection.It decreases the power of the office in this respect.. In addition it limits the will of the people in not providing an additional opportunity to reelect a President the majority prefers. There you go. I'm sure others can give you better arguments than I have included but those are my two cents worth..
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Term limits are a good idea. Politicians should be elected based on ideas and results, not their cult of personality.
     
  4. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    No, and we should impose term limits on Congrees too.
     
  5. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    How about term limits for senators?
     
  6. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Exactly. I think that you should have a limit imposed on how long you can be a federal elected official, say thirty years total.

    So if you serve 20 years in Congress, you could theoretically serve 10 as the President (of which only eight would work due to election cycles).

    I'm not real hung up on the mechanism for limiting. I want to allow people to serve, but I don't want them entrenched to the point they are non removeable.

    Another mechanism would be to require breaks in service. Say a two for one deal.

    Example is that you serve two senate terms (twelve years), you are required to take a break for six years. Then you can run again. I would apply this to all federal elected positions. Under this scenario, Bill could run again now (oh gawd) and GW could run again after a four year break. Then we could have a tie breaker of Bill v George. Imagine the violence [​IMG][​IMG] That would be great TV.

    Finally, you know that to impose a limit on Congress that will take an Amendment right? The USSC already stated that a state cannot impose a limit on FEDERAL service.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    Oops! Didn't see your post Mr. P
     
  8. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    No problem..
     
  9. stophillary
    Offline

    stophillary Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think term limits are a good idea. The only way I got throght Clinton's term was the knowledge that he'd be out in eight years.
     
  10. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    I have mixed emotions about term limits. There is the urge to say, "No, the people should decide if someone has served too long or not." Then again, it was never intended for people to be career politicians. Limit terms, and there might well be more concentration on getting something done rather than setting things up for re-election. Limiting a presidents term, as well as terms for congress and the senate, could also lessen the power of special interest groups.
     

Share This Page