Amendment to Remove Presidential Term-Limit

[WillowTree]

There should be term limits on every elected public service post at every level of government...IMO.

Exactly, we need to move quickly and impose them on those idiots we call the Congresscritters.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm very opposed to term limits. And I generally find that the people who support them are either the "I hate government" types or are unhappy that their party/candidate isn't in the majority so figures they have a better chance without successful incumbants. (note that I said GENERALLY).

Just my opinion on the suject. And it's not about wanting a "president for life". You don't really think any president is going to be able to maintain that level of popularity for that many terms, do you?

Several issues Jill. I found in my research for my paper on the subject that first incumbency is an almost impossible advantage to overcome. Many incumbent Congressmen run unopposed. When they are opposed, their war chests overflow with cash and they can/do outspend opponents at impossible rates. There are typically only a few ways an incumbent can be beaten: sometimes (although clearly not always), if they have been convicted of a crime; if they've been redistricted to run against another incumbent or they are unlucky enough to have a self-funded multimillionaire run against them.

This situation is compounded by people not understanding what they are voting for. So many people, usually with a bit of smug superiority in their voices, say, "I don't vote for party, I vote for the person I think can do the best job." Which is total bullshit. Oh, they may vote that way, but the people they elect don't. I had a beautiful chart in my paper that laid out the percentage of party line voting done by t members of both parties in Congress for the last 50 years. It was greater then 85% on average for both parties. So if you think you are voting for some independent individual, you/they are just fooling themselves.

All that being said, people generally like to point out how corrupt Congress is while saying how great their Congressman is. Back to Tip O'Neil's oft quoted saw that all politics is local. If a Congressman uses his franking privilege well enough and brings those road projects home, he'll win with 60%+ of the vote year in and year out.

The star of my paper was a Congressman from Mississippi that had been elected before Pearl Harbor and was still serving in 1992. You can't tell me he was the only guy worthy of that seat in the 50 years he held it. As I said earlier, placing term limits on congress is unconstitutional, however I do believe after some period, they should not have ballot access. If they still get elected, fine.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I go both ways!

Quite an admission in public forum!

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm very opposed to term limits. And I generally find that the people who support them are either the "I hate government" types or are unhappy that their party/candidate isn't in the majority so figures they have a better chance without successful incumbants. (note that I said GENERALLY).

Just my opinion on the suject. And it's not about wanting a "president for life". You don't really think any president is going to be able to maintain that level of popularity for that many terms, do you?

Oh, with more of a focus on the presidential side. This should be something that you can appreciate. With FDR, the first 8 years was characterized by the Supremes striking down his programs as unconstitutional. This led to Roosevelt's plan to pack the court with his people by expanding the court to 15 justices and adding a justice for each one over 70 years of age. Although this effort was defeated, the court got the message.

But, it was not until after Roosevelt was elected for his 3rd term that the court began to rule in his favor. US v. Darby Lumber, was not decided until 1941. This, as you may recall, was the first extension of commerce clause jurisdiction and overturn Hammer v. Dagenhart. Basically, the court came to realize they were never going to get rid of this guy and took it as a permanent sea change.

While you may be in favor of the results of this, because FDR was on your political side, imagine if Reagan had been elected 4 times (he did leave office with a 63% approval rating). Would you still be of the same opinion?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This should be shot down immediately.

I disagree, the VOTERS are the ones that should decide who is and who is not President, no matter how many times they elect someone. The Term limit is the Voters.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Several issues Jill. I found in my research for my paper on the subject that first incumbency is an almost impossible advantage to overcome. Many incumbent Congressmen run unopposed. When they are opposed, their war chests overflow with cash and they can/do outspend opponents at impossible rates. There are typically only a few ways an incumbent can be beaten: sometimes (although clearly not always), if they have been convicted of a crime; if they've been redistricted to run against another incumbent or they are unlucky enough to have a self-funded multimillionaire run against them.

This situation is compounded by people not understanding what they are voting for. So many people, usually with a bit of smug superiority in their voices, say, "I don't vote for party, I vote for the person I think can do the best job." Which is total bullshit. Oh, they may vote that way, but the people they elect don't. I had a beautiful chart in my paper that laid out the percentage of party line voting done by t members of both parties in Congress for the last 50 years. It was greater then 85% on average for both parties. So if you think you are voting for some independent individual, you/they are just fooling themselves.

All that being said, people generally like to point out how corrupt Congress is while saying how great their Congressman is. Back to Tip O'Neil's oft quoted saw that all politics is local. If a Congressman uses his franking privilege well enough and brings those road projects home, he'll win with 60%+ of the vote year in and year out.

The star of my paper was a Congressman from Mississippi that had been elected before Pearl Harbor and was still serving in 1992. You can't tell me he was the only guy worthy of that seat in the 50 years he held it. As I said earlier, placing term limits on congress is unconstitutional, however I do believe after some period, they should not have ballot access. If they still get elected, fine.

And yet we have 2006 and 2008 to prove you wrong. Also 1994 and 1996.

 

[GHook93]

Quite an admission in public forum!

Yep I am a batter and a catcher! You caught me! Duh
But you have to get me a few dozen drinks first!

 

[GHook93]

I disagree, the VOTERS are the ones that should decide who is and who is not President, no matter how many times they elect someone. The Term limit is the Voters.

True, but when someone is in charge too long things can get manipulated in his favor very easily. Then the people basically lose their voting ability!

 

[jillian]

I disagree, the VOTERS are the ones that should decide who is and who is not President, no matter how many times they elect someone. The Term limit is the Voters.

I agree with you.

 

[Charles_Main]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This should be shot down immediately.

I do not think it is all that bad of an Idea. Even with Obama in power. If a president does a good job and the people like him enough to keep electing him why not. As long as there are still elections and competitors I see no problem at all with it.

In Hugos country they still have elections, but opposition parties are harrassed, arrested and outlawed. I hope that would not happen here, so I see no problem with lifting the Term limits for Presidents.

However I do find it pretty comical we are talking about this now. Right after a president as bad as Bush, and before we have any Idea how Obama is going to do.

My thought is be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And yet we have 2006 and 2008 to prove you wrong. Also 1994 and 1996.

You can combine 2006 and 2008, it was really the same election, a referendum on GWB.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with 1996. I don't recall it being an exceptional election.

In 1994, the Congressional check-kiting scandal coincided with the Republicans nationalizing the election with the Contract with America. It gave the people the 1 - 2 punch to shift the paradigm. The easy to understand, "You can't kite checks" and the positive, here's what we're going to do for you if you elect us.

1994 is the exception that proves the rule.

2006/2008 should be separated out like 1968 for the Dems. The Dems created Vietnam and got their ass in a sling in 1968 because of it. Neither of the 2 guys that didn't vote for the Tonkin Gulf resolution was running for President. I think you can't just throw anti-war referendum elections into the hopper with all the rest.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I do not think it is all that bad of an Idea. Even with Obama in power. If a president does a good job and the people like him enough to keep electing him why not. As long as there are still elections and competitors I see no problem at all with it.

In Hugos country they still have elections, but opposition parties are harrassed, arrested and outlawed. I hope that would not happen here, so I see no problem with lifting the Term limits for Presidents.

However I do find it pretty comical we are talking about this now. Right after a president as bad as Bush, and before we have any Idea how Obama is going to do.

My thought is be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.

I find it frightening that people think that we are so safe from this type of thing in this country, that it can't happen here. All we know is that it hasn't happened yet. How about we just do nothing and that will make sure it can't happen instead of risking it?

We have far more to lose than to gain.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1996 saw the Republicans take over the Senate. 2002 was a year the Republicans should have lost seats and they gained them. Sorry your claim does not wash. Also the republicans gained seats in the Senate during Bush's Presidency after a disaster that was the Democrats blocking every nomination for any position.

 

[Tech_Esq]

1996 saw the Republicans take over the Senate. 2002 was a year the Republicans should have lost seats and they gained them. Sorry your claim does not wash. Also the republicans gained seats in the Senate during Bush's Presidency after a disaster that was the Democrats blocking every nomination for any position.

I'll stick to my guns. I've done the research.

I think you may be off your feed today. You even agreed with Jillian.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

One of the good things about term limits is that the elected official will then have at least one term where they can focus on the good of the people, rather than the good of their financial backers. No guarantees that they will of course, but term limits certainly make it more likely.

 

[Skeptik]

One of the good things about term limits is that the elected official will then have at least one term where they can focus on the good of the people, rather than the good of their financial backers. No guarantees that they will of course, but term limits certainly make it more likely.

Along with term limits, we need to have campaign spending limits as well.

 

[Ravi]

Why? You people boggle my mind.

I can understand that something can be detrimental, but if we fix everything then we are no longer a democratic republic, or whatever the hell we are these days. How much interference from the government does everyone want to protect us from ourselves?

I've read here recently that a test should be given before we allow someone to vote, an age limit should be set, the vote of the public is meaningless, a cap should be spent on campaign financing...I'm mystified.

 

[DiveCon]

I disagree, the VOTERS are the ones that should decide who is and who is not President, no matter how many times they elect someone. The Term limit is the Voters.

thats my take on it as well
dont tell me i CANT vote for someone i want to vote for

 

[KittenKoder]

The natural advantages of an incumbant POTUS are huge.

Before I'd sign onto ending that term limit somebody would have to come up with a really good reason to get rid of it.

I cannot think of one.

Same here.

 

[KittenKoder]

I disagree, the VOTERS are the ones that should decide who is and who is not President, no matter how many times they elect someone. The Term limit is the Voters.

Not until we go to a one vote per person, no in betweens, no colleges, etc.. Otherwise they can find a way to take advantage of the current system. Put in a true democracy then sure, term limits are stupid, but it's still possible to get into office without the votes of the citizens.