Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
One Term Limit For US Presidents?  
User currently offlineTPASXM787 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 19
Posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3134 times:

While out back cleaning the deck this morning I had an idea. With the trend of Presidents not doing a lot in their second term, and in turn Congress not doing much either, why not limit the Pres term to one six-year term.

Just looking at our last two Pres, from 98-00 nothing was accomplished under Clinton, the market started to slide, and there was inaction on any fronts (besides a few pardons  Wink )

With GWB yes, I voted for him  sarcastic  Wink he was a solid first term Pres, after 9/11 he really looked and acted like a leader, but I think it muddled his thinking. He thought that he could do anything, and in turn went to war in Iraq for reason yet to be determined, then proceeded to have that stupid mission accomplished banner. He got us into this, and now I don't see him doing anything (ie letting the military do what needs to be done, their hands are tied, a la Vietman) to get us out.

The recent ideas of $844-mil in food stamp cuts and another $70bil in tax cuts (believe me I'm all for less taxes, but damn) have made me wonder. Do second term Pres care? They have no one to answer to. No one to get them reelected.

Why not one six year term. The Constitution has been amended before. Why not again.


This is the Last Stop.
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3124 times:

I'm for no term limits for anyone. The best "term-limit" tool we have is the ballot box, so why should we artificially have limits on how long someone can serve, if the poeple want them to continue to serve?

The amendment limiting a president's term was done out of spite because FDR won four elections. But so? The American people obviously felt he shold be president, so why limit his term?

However, if people are going to enact term limits, I think the presidency should be changed to TWO six-year terms. One, it would make the need of a president to be campaigning less of a priority, and secondly, it give a president enough time, if the people re-elect him/her, to truly establish where they want to take the country.

If limits are to be established in Congress, I think it should be 2 six-year terms in the Senate, and, I for one, would like to see the House changed from running every two years to running every four years, and limiting the House to 3 four-year terms. Those guys in the House are in campaign mode all the time, and that's not a good thing.


User currently offlineEI747SYDNEY From Ireland, joined Oct 2005, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3123 times:

Maybe it's best as is. If the President is incompetent well he's out in 4 years (or so we tought) but what happens to a really popular President who is making a real difference to the economy and to the US identity the world over. There would be real uproar if he only had on 6 year term.

Rob



''Live life on the edge, Live each and every day like it's your last, Hell you only live once''
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

I think that the best way to determine the president's livelyhood in the white house would be by the ballots. However, I believe that 8 yr. limits were put in place so that no one would become similar to a "King" in the US, even if they were voted in every time.

That being said, I CAN'T STAND our current president, and I voted for the bastard in the first election, and it's been downhill from there. Now, I look at him and just have to throw my hands up and say, WTF? I'm sick of fighting against his administrations stupidity, I mean, the people voted him in again, and now that he has no other elections to determine what he does, he can quit trying to please the public and do whatever the hell he wants, but then again, he's been doing whatever the hell he wants since he became president.

Too bad the voting majority in the US is primarily old and conservative, otherwise I think you'd see more scrutiny in presidential elections than the nonchalant act of being a republican, just to be a republican and being aldemocrat just to be a democrat.

UAL


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

The problem with a one 4-year term limit for the President would mean that they would immediately become a lame duck and it would be harder for them to push their agendas. So unless a member of the Cabinet is considered to be a likely presidental candidate, the balance of power is really in the hands of the Legislative Branch.

Some states used to have laws that would not allow the Governor to run for re-election. They'd serve one term, step aside for a term, then get elected governor again. In some cases, the governor would make sure one of his cronies would get elected so they could still pretty much unofficially run things. And in the case of George Wallace, he had his wife run and she got elected.

I am in favor of term limits so to do away with career politicans. In the US Senate alone, you have folks like Robert Byrd, Teddy Kennedy, Ted Stevens, Pete Domenici, Arlen Spector, Orrin Hatch, Joe Biden just to name a few who have spent over 20 years in their current office. In the US House, there are quite a few who have made a career out of being a Representative (Folks like Barney Frank, Tom DeLay, John Lewis, Dennis Hasert, Henry Hyde).


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 4):
I am in favor of term limits so to do away with career politicans. In the US Senate alone, you have folks like Robert Byrd, Teddy Kennedy, Ted Stevens, Pete Domenici, Arlen Spector, Orrin Hatch, Joe Biden just to name a few who have spent over 20 years in their current office. In the US House, there are quite a few who have made a career out of being a Representative (Folks like Barney Frank, Tom DeLay, John Lewis, Dennis Hasert, Henry Hyde).

Again, if people want to re-elected an official, why should a law stop them? It's up to the voters, after all, isn't it? The best term limit is the ballot box, and if voters want to keep sending someone to the Statehouse or the Capitol, that's their business, and they should have the right to do so.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Actually, I'm in full concurrence with Falcon on this one. But that alone is not a cure-all. There's still the issues of the Electoral College and Gerrymandering/carpetbagging that are in bad need of some tweaking.

Also, re:the 22n'd Ammendment (Presidential term limits), the last and only time I'm aware of it being seriously considered for repeal was in '87-'88 when Reagan was on his way out. Unfortunately, it went nowhere.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3054 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 6):
Also, re:the 22n'd Ammendment (Presidential term limits), the last and only time I'm aware of it being seriously considered for repeal was in '87-'88 when Reagan was on his way out. Unfortunately, it went nowhere.

so you would have wanted a President with Alzheimers in its early stages then?

That's the lamest example possible, and one which demonstrates that the existing arrangement did America a favour. Reagan was showing symptoms in 88, and you would have wanted him re-elected?


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
I'm for no term limits for anyone. The best "term-limit" tool we have is the ballot box, so why should we artificially have limits on how long someone can serve, if the poeple want them to continue to serve?

I'm for term limits for all elective office. Public service ought to be just that - public service. Not staying in Congress for 30 years and becoming an obstacle to progress, or using elective office to become wealthy at the expense of taxpayers.

Two words, for you, Falcon, on why we shouldn't have indefinite terms of office - Jesse Helms. Or maybe Ted Stevens, the current King of Pork, and Ted Kennedy, the epitome of hypocrisy.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
However, if people are going to enact term limits, I think the presidency should be changed to TWO six-year terms. One, it would make the need of a president to be campaigning less of a priority, and secondly, it give a president enough time, if the people re-elect him/her, to truly establish where they want to take the country.

I'd go for one 6 year term as President. Once you are elected, you can govern, not just run for re-election. Two four year terms for the Senate, and four two year terms as representative. You could take a break and come back after sitting one term out. Even as President.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
ain, if people want to re-elected an official, why should a law stop them? It's up to the voters, after all, isn't it? The best term limit is the ballot box, and if voters want to keep sending someone to the Statehouse or the Capitol, that's their business, and they should have the right to do so.

Because incumbency creates unbridled power, which attracts lobbyists and money, which perverts the system. I'd bet we'd have a coherent tax code if there were term limits.


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4504 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

I would support a 6-year 1 term limit for presidents, I would support increasing terms from 2 years to 4 years for the House, and am against term limits in the senate and house.

I disagree with removing term limits for the presidency...remember that although the people have the vote, the people are easily manipulated and buy into propaganda easily, on all political sides. I fear that no term limits could lead to a drastic abuse of power in the executive branch and the voters wouldn't bring it to an end because they'd all be spoon fed the idea that it's being done for their safety. Change is a good thing, and a 1-term, 6-year limit would, imo, be the best.

But i agree, the house is always in campaign mode when they need to be focused more on the issues of the nation...therefore, i support increasing their terms.


User currently offlineIlikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

Quoting TPASXM787 (Thread starter):
With the trend of Presidents not doing a lot in their second term, and in turn Congress not doing much either, why not limit the Pres term to one six-year term.

Here is where I see the problem with your idea. Instead of four years of productivity and four years of a lame duck, you propose six years of a lame duck. Once a politician, who doesn't have to worry about re-election, gets into office, they will become a "king" of sorts for six years.

The greatest check and balance citizens have with all of their leaders is the ballot box. Re-election is a politician's incentive to do good (and I use that term loosely) in office and keep his/her constituents happy to get the votes to keep him/her in office.

But here is where the theory doesn't meet reality. The above ideology gives too much credit to the average voter and doesn't account for the self interest of politicians. All politicians (with the occasional exception) are liars and idiots who will say just about anything to get a vote. They won't represent you, the represent only the interests of the biggest campain donors. With no term limits you get career politicians who can, over time, generate a lot of propaganda and become corrupt and still maintain office.

So the point of my post is this, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Change the term limits like you suggest and you get a guaranteed lame duck. Don't impose term limits and you get career cronies.

The only term limit change I support is raising the term of a Representative from 2 years to four years.



Fighting Absurdity with Absurdity!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
I'm for term limits for all elective office. Public service ought to be just that - public service. Not staying in Congress for 30 years and becoming an obstacle to progress, or using elective office to become wealthy at the expense of taxpayers.

I tend to agree. I would favor a 1-term limit on all elected offices particularly for Congress. The worst thing about the American government (and most others) is the class of professional politicians it has created, like Jesse Helms or Ted Kennedy. These are people who know nothing about what it is like to hold a real job in the real world, and live by buying votes via pork projects for which they negotiate with each other, with taxpayers holding the bill.

Normal people, doctors, lawyers, farmers, and teachers should be encouraged to take a few years off from their regular jobs, run for congress or the senate, and return to the real world after their one term of office. Maybe he can run for another office, but not the same one. This would provide no incentive for pork projects, and each vote is made according to the individual's convictions of what is best for the country, NOT what is best for his political career.

I would make an exception for chief executive positions, as it is one of unique leadership. It is sometimes desirable to continue existing leadership, particularly in times of crisis. I'm kinda iffy on that score though.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2996 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
The best "term-limit" tool we have is the ballot box

I quite agree . . . the single problem with this is we have those people that simply don't get out to vote. They don't care. Most argue that it's their choice, and that's fine. I think it's a responsibility, not a right, to vote. I don't care for whom you vote, as long as you vote.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 7):
so you would have wanted a President with Alzheimers in its early stages then?

That's not what he said, or implied. He simply made note that the 22nd Amendment was considered for repeal when Reagan was in office.

As to the topic, I'm for term limits for all politicians . . . right down to the elected City Dog Catcher.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
Because incumbency creates unbridled power, which attracts lobbyists and money, which perverts the system. I'd bet we'd have a coherent tax code if there were term limits.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2979 times:

Quoting Ilikeyyc (Reply 10):
Here is where I see the problem with your idea. Instead of four years of productivity and four years of a lame duck, you propose six years of a lame duck. Once a politician, who doesn't have to worry about re-election, gets into office, they will become a "king" of sorts for six years.

Not necessarily. Here in Virginia, the governor gets one four year term, and the Commonwealth hasn't suffered for it.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
the single problem with this is we have those people that simply don't get out to vote. They don't care

They don't care and many of them don't know how. They think that its some sort of horribly complicated process that would require a lot of effort on their part. So, the trend seems to be......why worry.

However, I am excited to see what the future holds for technology at the polls. Perhaps one day they will be able to develop a sign-in voting ballot online that would let far more people vote. I just don't think the problem of apathy will be solved anytime soon, so why not make it easier for the voters. Of course, you run into fraud issues, but we already have that now.



Crye me a river
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
No Trophy For US Soldiers, Pentagon Doesn't Care.. posted Wed Sep 6 2006 18:48:37 by TedTAce
Big Oil Discovery For US posted Wed Sep 6 2006 12:21:29 by Jasond
$600 One-way Ticket For Illegal Immigrants! posted Sat Jun 10 2006 09:42:19 by FXramper
Global Banking Question For US Student In UK posted Thu May 11 2006 12:31:40 by SmithAir747
Question For US A.Netters Regarding The US Flag posted Sun Feb 19 2006 01:40:20 by TheSonntag
New Deadline For US Reporter Held Captive. posted Sat Feb 11 2006 03:54:07 by Airlinelover
Belarussian Transit Visa For US Citizen posted Thu Feb 9 2006 07:31:26 by TLG
For Us Sad Harry Potter Fans... posted Fri Oct 21 2005 00:26:48 by Pilot kaz
A Panhandler Just Did Something Very Nice For Us. posted Wed Aug 17 2005 03:22:18 by LHMark
Brazil Approves End Of Visa For US Citizens posted Wed Jun 8 2005 20:00:54 by Hardiwv