# Abolish Presidential Term limits! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565 "2003-03-15T08:11:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/21 "2003-03-16T01:52:15Z")
I don’t like the idea of limmiting people’s freedom to vote for whom they desire, but I’d rather stick with the current system than forbid two consecutive terms. That would make all presidents semi-lame duck executives. I would, however, favor disallowing former first ladies to run for president, at least until Hillary is too old. Just kidding, of course. I’d actually LOVE to see her run, and the Dems might just be naive enough to nominate her. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/22 "2003-03-16T01:55:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > **I don’t like the idea of limmiting people’s freedom to vote for whom they desire, but I’d rather stick with the current system than forbid two consecutive terms. That would make all presidents semi-lame duck executives.** I assumed that **stypticus** was proposing that the limit be _two consecutive_ terms, so that a two-term president could run for a third term, but only after sitting at least one term out. I did not think that **stypticus** was proposing a total ban on consecutive terms. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/23 "2003-03-16T02:21:01Z")
Brian: Yes, I misread the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/24 "2003-03-16T02:44:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bjohn13 \* > **Thank you for the explanatin in your first post, NP. However, we were both correct in asserting that Nixon never completed his second term.** True, but that’s irrelevant to the application of the [22nd Amendment](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22/): > [@](#): > > Section 1. **No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,** and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. Since Nixon was twice elected to the office of President, the 22nd barred him from seeking a third term, just like Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton. The fact that he didn’t finish his second term didn’t make him eligible to run again. ---
**Author:** ![bjohn13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@bjohn13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bjohn13)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/25 "2003-03-16T02:44:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stypticus \* > **I’ve always thought that having such short-term Presidents (eight years is a very short time) would make it hard to institute solid long-term plans or build solid relationships with other heads of state. And while I do recognize the difficulty presented by presidential inertia, of nine presidents since amendment 22, three didn’t get elected for a second term. That’s not as lopsided as I’d expected and I wonder how well that figure supports the inertia argument.** I’m not sure if I made proper sense out of this. You stated that three of nine Presidents didn’t get elected to a second term. I count four (Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Bush I). I ommitted Johnson because, even though he was elected only once, he was elected to a “second” term since he served part of Kennedy’s. > [@](#): > > \*\*What of the OP’s suggestion that _consecutive_ terms be limited, but not non-consecutive terms? That’d give the potential inertia a break but allow really good presidents another go. Nobody’s touched that part of the question yet. \*\* I touched a bit on this question before, but maybe not thoroughly enough. Let’s say that Bill Clinton still had tremendous public support right now. He is still very young, so people would probably be counting on him being the Democratic nomination in 2004 if such remained true. Furthermore, his support could possibly be so overwhelming, it could undermine the current President’s authority and make his term a lame duck term since most people would be planning on voting Clinton back into office anyway. That is why I don’t like the idea. That possibility just seems to plausible. ---
**Author:** ![bjohn13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@bjohn13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bjohn13)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/26 "2003-03-16T03:27:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Northern Piper \* > \*\*True, but that’s irrelevant to the application of the [22nd Amendment](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22/):Since Nixon was twice elected to the office of President, the 22nd barred him from seeking a third term, just like Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton. The fact that he didn’t finish his second term didn’t make him eligible to run again. \*\* Ok…since we’re nitpicking, you were more wrong than I. In fact, I can see no error at all in what you posted. As far as literal interpretations of what I posted, the fact that Nixon would have indeed been eligible for re-election had the 22nd Amendment been passed makes my statement partially wrong. I figured that most people would consider Nixon “ineligble” since, to paraphrase what you said, he did not finish his second term. ---
**Author:** ![stypticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@stypticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stypticus)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/27 "2003-03-17T02:06:25Z")
**bjohn13** , not being American I have little background in American politics. I searched for a list of presidents and counted those since 1951 (my web-searched Amendment 22 ratification date), and I took a number from a previous poster for the not-re-elected figure. Likely that last was wrong; I’ll believe you that it was four. Which makes my case more strongly than three. Four out of nine is almost 50% of presidents since Amendment 22 _not_ getting re-elected; how does that support the argument that incumbents are more likely to be re-elected? Also, could you expand on why Clinton’s potential potential for re-election would make the current president’s term a lame duck? (Yes, two potentials.) ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/28 "2003-03-17T03:41:57Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by stypticus_ > **bjohn13, not being American I have little background in American politics. I searched for a list of presidents and counted those since 1951 (my web-searched Amendment 22 ratification date), and I took a number from a previous poster for the not-re-elected figure. Likely that last was wrong; I’ll believe you that it was four.** Okay, **bjohn13** and **stypticus** , let’s keep the facts straight. The “number from a pevious poster” that **stypticus** is referring to was mine: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by brianmelendez_ > **The presidents who have run for reelection since the 22nd amendment was ratified have all won their party’s nomination, and all but three (Ford, Carter, and Bush I) got reelected.** That statement is correct. But **bjohn13** got to the number four by adding President Kennedy: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by bjohn13_ > I’m not sure if I made proper sense out of this. You stated that three of nine Presidents didn’t get elected to a second term. I count four (Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Bush I). I ommitted Johnson because, even though he was elected only once, he was elected to a “second” term since he served part of Kennedy’s. The 22nd amendment did not affect President Kennedy, who did not run for reelection _because he was assassinated in office_. The amendment likewise did not affect President L. Johnson because he did not run for another term, even though he was eligible. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bjohn13 \* > Ok…since we’re nitpicking, you were more wrong than I. In fact, I can see no error at all in what you posted. Huh? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bjohn13 \* > As far as literal interpretations of what I posted, the fact that Nixon would have indeed been eligible for re-election had the 22nd Amendment been passed makes my statement partially wrong. I figured that most people would consider Nixon “ineligble” since, to paraphrase what you said, he did not finish his second term. I am not sure what **bjohn13** means by “Nixon would have indeed been eligible for re-election had the 22nd Amendment been passed” or by “most people would consider Nixon ‘ineligble.’” The fact is that the 22nd amendment did bar President Nixon from running for reelection. To summarize: The 22nd amendment has applied to ten presidents, beginning with President Eisenhower. The amendment barred four presidents (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) from running for reelection, even though they would have been eligible but for the amendment. Three presidents (Ford, Carter, Bush I) ran for reelection and lost, and thus never ran into the amendment’s bar, although they would have if they had been reelected. One president (L. Johnson) could have run for reelection, but did not do so–voluntarily, not because the amendment barred him. One president (Kennedy) died in office. One president (Bush II) is still serving and cannot yet be categorized in terms of how the amendment affects him. ---
**Author:** ![Jerseyrules](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jerseyrules](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerseyrules)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/29 "2011-02-10T16:22:58Z")
> [@Jiang](#): > > If the people desire to keep a certain individual as President for a long period of time, it is the people’s choice. Any provision that gets in the way of this choice to tyranny. However, with the knowledge that power tends to be abused as one gets a firmer grasp of it, I think the Constitution should be amended to forbid more than two CONSECUTIVE terms. So, in effect, a individual can serve for several eight-year terms as long as the people desire it. Limiting service to one eight year term for life is like banishing a rich person to live in the ghetto because he has lived in a mansion for over 30 years. It is simply undemocratic. Furthermore, having any part of Presidential service count for an individual who has succeeded to the presidency through premature removal of the previous President (i.e., if he took over as President before the halfway mark of his predecessor’s term, that term will count as one of his two alloted terms) is illogical. It is unfair to limit service to 6 years just because the previous President was assasinated. Two inconsecutive terms would defeat the purpose; it would need to be unlimited just because if you need to get through a crisis and only one man or woman could do the job (the incumbent) then there would be four years of “settling” for another candidate; world war 2 and the great depression probably couldn’t be solved if FDR had needed to wait four more years to run again and he died just months after his fourth successful election; that means it would have been 4 years of some other person who might have just made everything worse and taken far longer fir FDR to recover it and probably couldn’t do it with 8 years, 4 year break then 8 more ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565/30 "2011-02-10T16:30:34Z")
**Jerseyrules** , the poster you’re responding to was banned almost eight years ago. If you want to discuss this topic, please open a new thread and link to this one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-presidential-term-limits/161565.md?page=1)