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

[Worthingtons]

Clinton was good, for a Democrat.

[Kidlicious]

Reagan wouldn't have cleaned up his own mess. A third term would have been something to see for sure, but horrible for the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Incumbents have a lot of advantages in running for reelection.

Yep that's always true. They are always in the public eye, and have great recognition.

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

No, I don't. That person will then farm out all the executive functions that he can't do to other people. People vote on the President as much for his beliefs being in control over the entire executive branch as they do for him being the man in charge.

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.

I don't mind limiting the power of the executive branch... in fact I favor it. I always believed the legislative branch should be most powerful. But I don't believe in breaking up the executive. People vote on one person to spread his entire beliefs over the executive branch. If you have people vote for each cabinet position, a) people will get confused, and b) Congress might bypass certain departments where it doesn't like the cabinet head, making that department almost irrelevant. It's a recipe for disaster.

In every other democratic republic (like in Europe) the head of the government picks his cabinet. There is no statewide voting for cabinet members, because then the cabinet would simply be weakened by the head if people he doesn't agree with head them. It'd be disasterous!

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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 .

The oldest precedent I could find for this was Meyers v. United States, where the court held that the senate confirmation could not be required for removal of an agent of the executive branch. Of course, the opinion was written by Chief Justice Taft, who other than being a fat, odious turd of a justice, was also president at one point. Hardly an unbiased decision writer!

Nonetheless, I think this is another precedent that needs to go - by amendment if necessary - given the push for a professional, politically insulated bureacracy. Why an insulated bureacracy? So the CIA guy writing the report won't get fired if he refuses to fictionalize WMDs in some poor country that King George wants attack so as to wag the dog.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Incumbents have a lot of advantages in running for reelection.

Yep that's always true. They are always in the public eye, and have great recognition.

This doesn't always translate into an advantage. Just ask King George H.!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even if it was written by Taft, it was still correct. A Senate confirmation required for REMOVAL of an executive branch member would violate seperation of powers. The Senate might have to confirm main executive officers, but the President has (and should have) the right to fire anyone under him for any reason.

As for using the term - "King George"

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Even if it was written by Taft, it was still correct. A Senate confirmation required for REMOVAL of an executive branch member would violate seperation of powers. The Senate might have to confirm main executive officers, but the President has (and should have) the right to fire anyone under him for any reason.

Yeah, I think the Tenure in Office Act was done away with. It only existed to get Johnson in trouble anyway.

As for using the term - "King George"

Right, empires have Emperors, not kings

edit: fixed tag

[Imran Siddiqui]

Right, empires have Emperors, not kings

You mean like Emperor William I, who was just ousted in 2001?

[Victor Galis]

You mean like Emperor William I, who was just ousted in 2001?

-Kaiser Wilhelm sounds more dramatic

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Even if it was written by Taft, it was still correct. A Senate confirmation required for REMOVAL of an executive branch member would violate seperation of powers. The Senate might have to confirm main executive officers, but the President has (and should have) the right to fire anyone under him for any reason.

As for using the term - "King George"

Well, he wasn't elected or anything ...

I don't know that Taft is correct on this point. My guess pre-Myers would have been that senate confirmation of removal would have been a function of the statute creating the position.

Even with cabinet removals, unless the text of the constitution said other wise (and I don't know off hand), I would also guess that what it takes both the president and senate to do it takes both to undo. That seems sound.

Anyway, I can't resist taking an ad hominem shot at the fat man. Apparently, his decendant is in charge of the the legal section of the state department - where he argues against allowing victims of torture to use the Alien Torts Claim Act to sue US corporations that employ forced labor. What a nice family!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, he wasn't elected or anything

Of course he was, even though Prince Al wanted to steal the crown for himself .

Even with cabinet removals, unless the text of the constitution said other wise (and I don't know off hand), I would also guess that what it takes both the president and senate to do it takes both to undo.

Why would it? The Constitution only says that officers take office with advice and consent of the Senate. It doesn't say anything about removing them. And if it doesn't say anything about removal, then the President has full power over it, because that's his branch. Congress doesn't have the power to intrude into the executive branch unless the Constitution says it can.

Anyway, I can't resist taking an ad hominem shot at the fat man.

You mean the one that busted more trusts than any other President in history (even ones which had the benefit of two terms)? The one who didn't care for playing politics when enforcing the law (which angered Teddy Roosevelt enough that he decided to run for President again)? Taft was a good President and just a great man!

[Q Classic]

actually, one might be wiser just amending the 22nd amendment, rather than repealing it wholesale.

iirc, that's the one that spells out the contingencies in the case of a calamity.

imho, term limits are good--put them in for everything except maybe the judicial system. hopefully, it would eliminate career politicians, and engender more citizen's participation in the political system.
then again, that's highly idealistc. we'd probably end up with even stronger parties and more idiots who follow blidly party line. it might devolve into a situation where it doesn't matter who the rep is, just so long as he's in your party. that would suck.

still, i favor term limits. as well as the extermination of formal parties.

[GePap]

I am personally opposed to the notion of term limits, so I think that ammendement should be repealled.

If it had never come into being, Eisenhower would have had a third term, and after that, who the hell knows what would have been. Reaganc oudl ahve gotten a third, never a fourth, and his third one would have been bad (he was deteriorating fast in the early 90's, and Iran-Contra would have stayed around, as well it did).

The way to change the power of incumbancy is to reform the electoral system, for example, making it illegal for a person in office to camaping at offical state events.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

The way to change the power of incumbancy is to reform the electoral system, for example, making it illegal for a person in office to camaping at offical state events.

That's going to be impossible to enforce. Take Bush's recent jaunt out to the carrier. That was pure politics, but it would have been impossible to prove that in court, as it is completely reasonable for the commmander in chief to inspect his troops, just as it is completely reasonable for him to allow the press acces to both the military and his own activities. Incumbancy is very powerful politically, and that is going to be very difficult to rein in. Corruption is going to be the end result the longer one guy is in power. Now there are a lot of people working in the government who haven't been hired by the current president, and who thus aren't beholding enough to him to remain silent while sleazy deals are made, or lies are told. These people have the option of confronting the administration with their charges directly, or simply leaking information that kicks off an investigation by congress or the press.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Fez
I want everything to remain the way it is. As some say "If it ain't broke, don't try fix it."

Right

The democrats don't have anybody. Not one person I see that even stands a chance against an incumbent.

Wrong