I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death many times over, but I was wondering about everyone's thoughts on the topic. As everyone knows, our constitution allows for 8 years: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am22.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_Amendment So do we have it right as is? Or should terms be limited to 4 years only, more than 8, or something altogether different?
Seems like a stupid idea. Surely the constitutional requirement for voting protects against a monarchy.
Hmm, I'm not sure. If one party were to dominate long enough there is a chance that they could simply continue to amend and legislate their opposition into oblivion.
There shouldn't be a president. No one individual should have that much power. It almost always ends in that one individual abusing it.
I wondered if someone would suggest this. One immediate benefit I can think of is a lessening of polarity in our system. There is no denying that a party can gain votes simply by which candidate represents them, particularly if there is something unique or iconic about them. Is there any reason why we couldn't have a government devoid of the presidency?
For Conservative President Five, for Liberal one only Two Years. Reason: The Liberal Presidents are extremely destructive.
Three terms at least. The legislation limiting Presidential terms was a reaction by a Republican led 18th Congress against a popular Democratic President (FDR). It really limits our power to re elect a qualified and possibly exceptional individual for the highest office. If they have too much power - VOTE THEM OUT. Is that too hard to understand. Foil their plan... But you make the choice not some law. Bro
Sure, if something happens to the President. This thread is about the amount of time an elected presidential candidate should be able to serve.
But what if after three terms a particular party had slowly manipulated the people and the opposition's ability to fight back to the point where things were heavily in their favor to maintain power?
I like a six-year term with no re-election. In the U.S., half, or more, of the first term is spent running for re-election and the second term is spent being a lame duck.
For the times that an immediate and timely response to circumstances is required. Congress can not accomplish this.
True, but just because something happens quickly doesn't mean that the right thing is going to happen. Also, with one person having the power to veto and make executive orders, withhold information from the public, war without congressional approval.... you can assure that the decision made has bias... which isn't always the greatest thing either.
2 terms is plenty. We need to do term limits on Congress as well. I think 6 terms in the House, and 2 terms in the Senate would be good.
It was a reaction to someone who went against the general gentleman's agreement that Presidents would limit THEMSELVES to two terms. That gentleman's agreement began with George Washington (who could probably have stayed as President for life). Roosevelt decided not to honor that so that he could remain in power.
I think the electorate can police the elections. Term limits just insure that we have inexperiance problems every 4 to 8 years. It also leads to chaos in diplomacy since world leaders cannot be sure that the person leading our diplomacy will be the same person after four years.