Anybody Favor Repealing the two-term limit?

Personally, I think that the 22nd Amendment is silly: term limits are inherently undemocratic -- if someone becomes ineffective than they can be voted out. Plus, I actually think relatively few presidents would serve more than two terms -- most are exhausted. Some would serve 3 (Clinton almost certainly would have) and maybe some younger ones, like Clinton, would've served 4, possibly more, but most likely not. Clinton would, I think, have served a third term, maybe a 4th, but at some pt. both Al and Hillary would've started getting impatient.

If the American people like a particular president, they should be allowed to keep electing them. That's my view.

Some other ideas for reform I have are lifting the ban on foreign-born citizens serving as President -- Michigan's Granholm could be President if this were lifted.

I'd also like to see the House elected to a 4-year term coinciding w/ the presidency (plus non-gerrymandered districts). I think this would keep open a much larger window for getting legislation passed and also give house members more time for getting achievements to show back home. And, if the districts were drawn fairly, it would allow coattails to play more of a role -- the party could run a national campaign every four years and then have 4 years in which there is less divided rule -- for instance, the Dems would have a good chance at getting 4 years of the presidency and 4 years of the House, and would then have a larger window to accomplish things. Midterm races would still exist for governorships and the senate, but I think the continuity would be less broken up and would make governing more efficient.

Anyway, those are my ideas. What are yours?

once we are assured the integrity of our voting processes

I can't stand the thought of another Bush term.

And get rid of the electoral college as well.

The Amendments to the Constitution should be for PROTECTING freedoms, not restricting freedoms. (And in this case the "freedom" to pick anyone and as many times as they want for President)

Then we can move onto which color to paint the bedroom

Politics is a career, just like plumbing. I don't
want a plumber being a politician at the same time.

we may lose the third erm of a good president once every 50 years, but we lose the president-for-life stuff that so many other countries suffer from. On the whole, I think it's a good limitation.

I believe all elected officials should be term-limited.

I think term limits in general are stupid. They assume that the people are too stupid to vote someone out of office.

Plus I agree that politics *can* be a carreer. Some people are good at what they do, why not let them do it. As for the insane incumbent power, that, I think, has more to do with campaign financing than anything else - that's the problem.

david

Kucinich 2004

Recall No
Arianna Yes

ARE too stupid to vote someone out of office. I think all offices should be term-limited. I've know a mayor I would love to see selling used cars like he used to. I disliked him so much, I left the city and moved elsewhere. However, I think that after a term has passed they should be eligible to run for the office again. Example would be Clinton, WJ; Clinton WJ; Bush, GW; Clinton, WJ.

Of course, that might set up a tremendous domestic dispute in a certain First household.

Here a few examples why this it not a good idea:
1. The mayor or Los Angeles and Detroit were in office for 5 terms each(that's 20 years). Both cities fell apart during that time. Their fault? I think so,but after a while, the mayor can virtually eliminate all his opponents and the city full of "supporters." This is never a good thing.
2. Govenor of Michigan in office 3 terms. By the election for his fourth term he was advocating drilling the Great Lakes for oil. Such a bad idea even his own party was confused. Only intervention by Michigan federal senators stopped this action.
3.The president of Peru, Fujimora(sp)skipped out to Japan where he was still a "citizen." As yet, Japan has refused to extridite him.
None of these prove that your arguement can't work, but from what I have seen, the evidence shows how it can be abused and corrupted.

Who set the standard, up until FDR, of not accepting more than 2 terms.

The 22nd Amendment codified this tradition.

You are right that it smacks of undemocratic-ness, but the safeguards it imposes against Imperial Rule cannot be underestimated.

Think about it. Now that the Busheviks have control of the "electoral" process, at least the 22nd Amendment makes them change Emperors every 8 years, forcing them to acquiesce a bit more to the charade than the original Caesers, who could have a single Emperor rule for decades.

So no way would I want to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

necessary.

Let us elect whoever we want as many times as we want.

The one thing I'm proud of George Washington is that he saw the need to step down after 2 terms. Even though he was popular and easily could of won more he knows that this republic needs to constantly change it's leader to stay fresh and competitive.

FDR might of been one of the greatest presidents with a unimaginable 4 terms, but who would want to see Regean try to pull off the same stunt.

because people can stay at the top of a government forever if they can keep getting elected (or rig the elections).

I do oppose legislative term limits, because IMHO lawmakers should have experience at what they do (look at CA now).

I support lifting the foreign-born ban if the residency requirements are beefed up.

I oppose lengthening House terms...the House passes enough bad bills as it is.