Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms?

World Net Daily ^ | October 8, 2006 | WND

[Cobra64]

No. The same should go for the Senate and the House. Two term max.!

[x]

Congressmen oppose "arbitrary" term limits? No surprise there.

But they don't look at the other side of the coin: what happens when a politician comes to view himself or herself as "indispensable" and doesn't bother preparing the next generation for leadership? Is there something to be said for getting out of the way while you're still more or less effective -- before you cause problems?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

"FDR provided some spectacular leadership at times in his tenure, he did not have the psychical strength to be a leading factor in the Yalta Conference."

He allowed 100 million Christians to be under the communists who are as bad as other socialists.
He gave us the ponzi scheme SS. His policy extended the depression to gain power.

[janetgreen]

Is there something to be said for getting out of the way while you're still more or less effective -- before you cause problems?

Of course, but ego-driven politicians, just like ego-driven athletes, hate to put themselves out of the spotlight, no matter the price.

[Melas]

You should have read further. The article clarifies that it would only be the first step to repealing the amendment.

[backtothestreets]

I don't like term limits because we stand to lose good leaders in an effort to oust poor leaders. If an amendment were embraced and ratified I'd prefer it stated a person cannot be elected to an office they have held without attaining a 5% increase in the popular votes, since the last election, for the office they seek.

This would force office holders to work more diligently for the constituency of the office they seek to retain.

FDR would not have been reelected to a third of fourth term if such a law had existed. In fact, he would not have been reelected to a second term! 1932 = 57.4%; 1936 = 60.6%; 1940 = 54.7%; 1944 = 53.4%. In contrast, Reagan enjoyed an 8% increase in popular votes in 1984 results over the 1980 election results.

If a change comes, make it a change that forces office holders to increase their performance for the constituency served, not simply occupy an office for a length of time.

[rintense]

No.

[Congressman Billybob]

I know the article said this was the first step. What I am objecting to is the use of the word "repeal." Congress CAN repeal any law, that Congress passed in the first place. Congress can never repeal any Constitutional provision.

This point is so basic that no writer on national politics should ever get it wrong. And if the writer is to ignorant to get it right, the editor ought to know better. John / Billybob

[MikefromOhio]

No because this would allow the NEXT Clinton-type President to stay forever.

Had the amendment NOT been in effect in 2000, We'd probably still have BJ.

That said, I do think that FDR was an aberration and wouldn't be the norm for the number of terms by a President.

[DakotaGator]

Hi Victoria. Glad to see you online! Nothing like a little Constitutional pondering to make your Sunday ;-)

[LibKill]

Not just no, **** NO! The only thing that got that idiot kkklintooon out was the 22nd Amendment. If you got rid of that the women would make him president for life.

[Melas]

While your suggestion is amusing, it has an obvious flaw: The more popular the president during his/her first election, the poorer his/her chances would be to win a second term.

A President Clinton, elected in a three way race with a popular vote in the low 40's could easily pick up 5% for a second election. By contrast, it would be next to impossible for a popular president with 65% to pick up an additional 5% to make 70.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The change I would make is for Supreme Court Justices to be nominated for 18 year terms, and each 4-year Presidency gets two (plus replacing for term remainders any who die or resign). And nothing to prevent a sitting President from renominating a justice with an expiring term. Chief could simply be the one with the most seniority, which would tend to rotate every two years.

[IronJack]

No.
Nein.
Nyet.
Non.
Nay.
Nope.
Uh uh.
Not.
Negative.

Get the picture?

With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, I wouldn't even want the same REPUBLICAN president for more than 8 years. The damage a Democrat could do in that time is incalculable. It will take a lifetime to purge Clinton's stain. Imagine if he had another term!

The mind boggles ...

[Joe Boucher]

Exactly.

[janetgreen]

The mind boggles ...

I agree - it also boggles the mind wondering why Sensenbrenner wants this.

[Nickname]

No.

If anything, limit them ALL to two terms.

They forget who they work for.

[spectre]

I'd like to see the 14th Amendment revisited or defined for the use it was originally intended. Illegals "Anchor" babies are born out of fraud..

Oh, HELL NOT, to a third term..groan.

sw

[Uriah_lost]

Washington was not "term limited", he set the two term standard which was followed as tradition until somebody went and screwed with that in the 20th century. The most amazing thing that Washington did in his entire presidency, which changed the rules and set the bar high for all following leaders was to voluntarily give up power.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

A one-term limit would be best.
One six-year term.

Great idea Mr. Mojo, why limit it to the President? Lets shoot for one term Senators too. We are too close to having a permanent ruling class as things stand today.

Regards,
GtG