Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms?

World Net Daily ^ | October 8, 2006 | WND

[WatchingInAmazement]

We've had enough monarchy to last several lifetimes.

Absolutely.

Bush 1

Clinton

Bush2

Clinton......

[donmeaker]

I think FD Roosevelt was the second worst president, right after Buchanan.

Imagine if he had sent a single Marine Regiment to push the Germans out of the Rhineland, shutting Schicklgruber down with minimal effort. That would have saved about 300,000 US lives as well as at least another 50 million.

Rather, he was busy violating the constitution, raising taxes, and paying white land owners to fire their black sharecroppers.

[jrg]

No. 1 term, 6 years. No re-election.

[WatchingInAmazement]

REPEAL 22ND AMENDMENT TO U.S. CONSTITUTION -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 18, 2005)

[Page: E302] GPO's PDF

---

SPEECH OF
HON. STENY H. HOYER
OF MARYLAND
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005

* Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today a joint resolution to repeal outright the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment requires that no person who has served two terms or has served two years of another President's term be permitted to serve another term of office.

* The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a

[Page: E303] GPO's PDF

supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.

* Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.

* A limitation on the terms that a President could serve was not fully discussed by the Founding Fathers. However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 72, recognized that one important benefit of not having term limits on the President would be:

* We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable. Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny. As the noted attorney and counsel to Presidents, Clark Clifford, said:

I believe we denigrate ourselves as an enlightened people, and our political process as a whole, in imposing on ourselves still further disability to retain tested and trusted leadership. The Congress and the Judiciary are now and will remain free to utilize their own countervailing constitutional power to forestall any executive overreaching.

REPEAL 22ND AMENDMENT TO U.S. CONSTITUTION -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 18, 2005)

[Page: E302] GPO's PDF
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109m67AX5::

[Doc91678]

I heartedly agree with you. In fact I'd like to change the empires that the Congress and Senate have built. They should have term limits as well. That would not entail the cahnge in the twenty-second Amendment. But would require another amendment to include senators and Congressmen. No more live long Senators. No More life long Congressmen. Two terms and your OUT. Get fresh blood into these political arenas.

[To Lurk or Not to Lurk]

I would say that quickly puts things in perspective ... :)

[Doc91678]

I heartedly agree with you. In fact I'd like to change the empires that the Congress and Senate have built. They should have term limits as well. That would not entail the cahnge in the twenty-second Amendment. But would require another amendment to include senators and Congressmen. No more life long Senators. No More life long Congressmen. Two terms and your OUT. Get fresh blood into these political arenas. Want to cut out Partisan wrangling. Want to cut out politcal corruption? This is the best way to do it.

[Tanniker Smith]

Any attempt to do this will also involve removing the restriction on being born in the USA, guaranteed. (Bad ideas, both.)

[RobRoy]

They should be elected for life. You know, like Castro.

I hear all the best leaders are elected for life!

[backtothestreets]

Yes, it would make it more difficult to win a second term, and that's the point. The office holder, be it the President, senator or representative would have to actually work to retain the constituency that voted for them previously and increase that constituency. Such a change could also add the stipulation a minimum 50% plus one vote be required.

What I'm trying to suggest is a performance driven change. Any change should have office holders working for the voters, not special interest, and definitely not just occupying a place in government with only a time constraint.

Sure a popular president receiving 65% of the popular vote would have to work harder to win another term, but a good leader would find that possible, not impossible, and exactly the sort of leaders that can best serve our nation.

It's bad enough having civil service employees that just spend time in jobs awaiting the time to leave their position without performance. I'd dread the time when this time-served requirement is extended to office holders. I want performance and results, not just people occupying a position for a given period of time.

[supercat]

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.

First of all, I wouldn't have a good showing in a candidate's earlier races increase the hurdles in later ones. On the other hand, requiring that a candidate receive 50% to get in office, 66% to stay in office one extra term, 75% for two, 80% for three, etc. might not be a bad concept. The biggest difficulty would be having to deal with multi-way races. Perhaps the proper thing would be to set up the election similar to California's recall vote, with two questions for voters:

1. Should official X remain in office for a second (third, whatever) term?
2. If official X does not remain in office, which of the following should be the replacement?

Answering "YES" to the first question would not preclude answering the second. Thus, the incumbent's party could run a proposed new candidate who could win even if the incumbent didn't receive the supermajority required for victory.

Even that, however, would not be entirely without problems. Perhaps retention should be determined in the primaries. People casting primary ballots for any party would be allowed to answer the retention question; if the official didn't manage to receive enough votes, the replacement selected by his party in the primary would go on to the general. Note that retention votes may be tabulated separately by party; in the unlikely event that a candidate receives the required 67% overall retention vote, but fails to win a 50% vote by his party, the party may decide to replace him despite his eligibility.

[trumandogz]

I say yes!

Our nation would be blessed if we had at least Four More Years with George W. Bush as our President.

[maineman]

NEVER

[supercat]

Sure a popular president receiving 65% of the popular vote would have to work harder to win another term, but a good leader would find that possible, not impossible, and exactly the sort of leaders that can best serve our nation.

So what happens when party X realizes its candidate is going to lose, so they encourage everyone to vote for party Y's candidate, thus effectively limiting him to one term?

I think including a retention vote in the primary might work, but trying to do things in the general election would create a mess.

[Bommer]

One six-year term.

I don't know what to think of that! 6 years of Clinton is better than 8, but 6 years of incompetants like Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford would have been disasterous!

[backtothestreets]

I wouldn't be opposed to what you propose at the primary level rather than the general election. It's performance driven. I also like what you stated in your initial response of the two questions that can be posed to voters in the primaries. That would effectively put the political parties back in control of their registered voters.

Thank you for your input. Hopefully others will set their sights higher for our elected than just time served in office. Reelection to any office should be based upon performance and results.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

Hey, Steny Hoyer, (D-MD), and Jim Sensenbrenner, (R-WI) you've got a lousy idea! Go away! Quit writing legislation! Stop the Pork! Just shut up and enjoy the perks we give you for life, OK?

NNNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Have a nice day, fellow Freepers...and Semper Fi.

[oyez]

I know that too.

[Bogtrotter52]

"Why not just have Kings (or Queens)......"

The way we are getting with family political dynasties...Siblings, sons, daughters, wives, etc., we are pretty much there already. To be honest I did not like it when it was pretty much the Kennedy clan and I do not like when it is the Bush family, or the Clintons, or Murkowski (in Alaska).....It ALWAYS sucks.

[Mr. Mojo]

I coudn't agree more with both of you -- a one-term limit for the 'critters as well as the President.

Of course such a restriction would have to be self-imposed, so that'll happen when pigs fly.