More than two terms for US President? (22nd Amendment)

[oedo]

after 16 years Kohl I can certainly say that 8 or 10 years in power are enough. he even was a good chancellor, though. but enough is enough.

[DinoDoc]

More than two terms for US President?

Would you have liked Reagan for another four years?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I always thought the funniest part of this statement is that Clinton probably wouldn't have become President if the 22nd was abolished (Reagan would have easily won Term #3 and #4, then stepped aside and Bush I would have faced another Democrat in '96).

Maybe, but by term #4 Reagan would have been to senile to find the oval office - let alone run it.

[Lorizael]

Fez, and you say Sava is bad!

Now onto real comments. The argument that we wouldn't want thirty year presidents doesn't really hold up because for most of our history there were no term limits, and never did a president stay in office that long.

FDR was in the longest, and he died. Oh yah, presidents get old and die. Most wouldn't want to be in office that long, even if they could.

The only reason Congressmembers get reelected so often is because a huge amount of PAC money goes to incumbents (candidate with the most money usually wins).

If you make elections a bit more fair when it comes to raising money, odds are there the reelection rate will drop. You do the same thing with the presidency, and there will never be thirty year presidents.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava, I would argue that the cabinet should be strengthened. Say independently elected, or irremovable without the consent of the senate.

Sorry, I had to smile at this... because this was the reason President Johnson was impeached... he fired a cabinet member without consulting the Senate (as the new law said he must).

Of course your proposal wouldn't pass by Amendment . It's always been assumed that executive branch departments were under the control of the President, because the President is the only executive and these positions were created and appointed by him to help him do his job .

[*End Is Forever*]

Personally I'd argue it was absurd to rest the entire executive branch on the shoulders of one man but then what do I know...?

[Sava]

Good points Templar. I would agree that I think the executive cabinet should be elected in that manner.

[Sava]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Personally I'd argue it was absurd to rest the entire executive branch on the shoulders of one man but then what do I know...?

I also agree.

Imran: If you are concerned with power corrupting, maybe we should limit the power of the executive branch or break it up; instead of limit the power of the people to choose.

[Imran Siddiqui]

most of our history there were no term limits, and never did a president stay in office that long.

That is because there was an IMPLIED term limit. President's prior to FDR left after two terms because Washington had done it and that was the way it should be done (this is exactly the reason why Grant did not seek a 3rd term... that he would have easily won, btw).

[DinoDoc]

As an aside, I kind of hope he keeps making statements like this. He's sucking up all the O2 from the current Dem candidates.

[Nubclear]

God no!!

Imagine......30+ more years of BUSH

But by then, China will have risen and brushed us off....

[Jon Miller]

I don't want Bush to be president for more than 8 years and I don't trust the Dems to come up with winners so yes, the current rules are a good thing

actually, limiting to one termmight be good

Jon Miller

[Victor Galis]

Term limits are good, despite the fact that I would have preffered Clinton to both Gore and Bush. Incumbents have a lot of advantages in running for reelection.

Personally, I think they should relax the age and being born in the US limitations on the office.

[*End Is Forever*]

2nd, the President as head of state and head of government shouldn't be concentrated in one man for too long... as they say power corrupts. Eight years corrupts enough, imagine 24?

Imran, surely if you believe this you'll agree that it's absurd to elect a single man as the entire executive?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

most of our history there were no term limits, and never did a president stay in office that long.

That is because there was an IMPLIED term limit. President's prior to FDR left after two terms because Washington had done it and that was the way it should be done (this is exactly the reason why Grant did not seek a 3rd term... that he would have easily won, btw).

I know that, but only one president has broken that implied term limit. I don't think that's enough of a precedence to totally destroy the limit.