Amendment to Remove Presidential Term-Limit

[DiveCon]

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.

its only happened TWICE in our history

the Electoral College system works

 

[RetiredGySgt]

its only happened TWICE in our history

the Electoral College system works

Actually 3 times. And 4 if you count when Congress made Adams President. All the other times though were in the 1800's.

I will NEVER support a "true" democracy. They do not work. Like Communism or anarchy they only work on VERY small scales with tight nit groups.

I personally do not want New York, LA, Chicago and a couple other large Megapolis's voting in my President.

 

[Old Rocks]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This should be shot down immediately.

Absolutely. In total agreement!

 

[michiganFats]

It's too bad we can't just term limit entire political Parties. Democrats and Republicans, Thank You for your service, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

So your opinion is that Federalism is what? Antiquated? Past it's day?

Read Federalist 68 and Antifederalist 72 and get back to me.

Which of these arguments carry the most weight?

Note we don't actually do it the way Hamilton thought in practice. However, it does provide multiple safeguards against abuse. We have not seen yet, but we could imagine a situation where some fraud was perpetrated on the the people to get them to vote for a person for president. Those electors be made wise to this fraud and not be taken in. But, read the papers and see what you think.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

The answer that has never worked in America is more restriction.

The answer that has always worked is more democracy.

Campaign finance reform is more restriction. The answer is not to be found there. The answer is to be found in changing the rule that locked us down to 435 Representative and put it back to being based on a given number of people per district. It was 250,000 when they locked it at 435. I would propose that 250,000 is a workable number.

More representative reduces the impact of money. More representative reduce the impact of professional congressional staffs. I could go on, but that's the idea.

 

[editec]

The answer that has never worked in America is more restriction.

The answer that has always worked is more democracy.

Campaign finance reform is more restriction. The answer is not to be found there. The answer is to be found in changing the rule that locked us down to 435 Representative and put it back to being based on a given number of people per district. It was 250,000 when they locked it at 435. I would propose that 250,000 is a workable number.

More representative reduces the impact of money. More representative reduce the impact of professional congressional staffs. I could go on, but that's the idea.

Boy! there you and I are SO in agreement, Tech Esq.

However, I would change that Rep number to 30,000, and I would SERIOUSLY consider increasing the number of Senators per state to five or seven or so.

I would ALSO completely revamp our election laws in many ways including:

limiting contributions to ONLY citizens who are registered voters in the area that the congressmen are running from; and

limiting contributions from voters to some very modest amount; and

np other financing other than public is possible

No corporations, no unions, no bundling, no foreign contributors and serious (extremely serious -- even up to and including DEATH) penalties for those who seek to evade or circumvent those laws.

If we truly want a democractic republiic then we need to structure laws in order for it to remain a DEMOCRACTIC republic.

We don't actually have a representational democratic government, now.

What we have now is a sort of CASHnCARRYocracy.

I think this nation's government is so legally corrupt, now, that we ought to change its name to

Bananamerica​

 

[Dante]

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to do.

This will not be the last effort though. It is completely in line with my thinking that Obama is the U.S.'s answer to Hugo Chavez. We can expect a lot of CHANGE to come our way.

many GOP types might have went for this when the GOP was supposedly in a permanent majority.

I support it on principle. Why? People should be able to vote for whom they want to be President for as many terms as they want.

Term limits are for dummies

 

[Dante]

I never understood term limits in a Democracy/Republic. If the people like a man/woman and want to keep voting them in as the Prez then so what?

ditto!

 

[Dante]

The answer that has never worked in America is more restriction.

The answer that has always worked is more democracy.

Campaign finance reform is more restriction. The answer is not to be found there. The answer is to be found in changing the rule that locked us down to 435 Representative and put it back to being based on a given number of people per district. It was 250,000 when they locked it at 435. I would propose that 250,000 is a workable number.

More representative reduces the impact of money. More representative reduce the impact of professional congressional staffs. I could go on, but that's the idea.

I like your post but cannot square it with you favoring restrictions on how many times one person can run for the same office and win.

 

[manifold]

I support it on principle...

Term limits are for dummies

When principle and pragmatism lock horns, how is one to decide?

 

[Dante]

When principle and pragmatism lock horns, how is one to decide?

IT depends. Every case would be situational, so there is no answer even given the same principle in the same circumstance.

nuance is a value.