The constitutional amendment you speak of was approved in 1951, before which there was no limit on presidential terms.
Coming from the California experience, term limits are, well, terrible. Not the cause of our problems, but they hardly make anything better.
The logic of term limits is that they prevent a politician from accumulating a developed network of power–including donors, voters, and media/business/personal relationships. Those all take time, and in theory cutting down on the time politicians have will get rid of those networks. Building those networks is a two way street–the politician gets something, and in return those nodes get something back. The reasoning goes, have smaller networks, and then politicians give fewer paybacks and will vote more for the common interest.
Which is almost true! The thing is, having those networks does help politicians get elected, and not allowing the creation of new networks means that the politician will rely on older, established ones. Which still help him or her get elected, but results in a dependency on the “Powers that Be.” In California, that amounts to, within the CDP, party bosses, business interests, and public sector unions, which is why California Democratic politics are so stale. And since it’s the more established, powerful network that gets people elected, that means even businesses often end up incorporated into the Party structure, despite their traditionally being Republican in orientation.
End result? A deeply undemocratic system within the CDP (e.g. see the Brown campaign for the nomination, which he won by denying he was a candidate for 10 months straight), and a moribund GOP that can only put up plausible candidates if they already have networks they’ve built outside the usual structure (e.g. Arnold and Meg Whitman).
If I’m a Senator or whatever, and I hope to get re-elected next term, then I’d better do things my constituents like (or at least, can tolerate), because no matter how much special interest money is thrown my way, it’s ultimately the voters that I’m accountable to. But if I’m getting term-limited out, then I know I’m not going to get re-elected anyway, so why should I give a damn what the voters think? Meanwhile, I know that next year I’m going to be in need of a new job, and look at this! A lobbying firm has offered me a high-paying position (if they like the way I vote).
As I stated, I was unveiling my political naivete. Anyway…is there a valid argument for limiting Presidential terms and not those of Congresspeople and Supreme Court Justices aside from imposed limitations?
How would it change the political landscape if we didn’t have Presidential term limits? If a person is doing a bang-up job, why not keep voting him in? He could be impeached at any time, and the influence an un-termed President could potentially wield over Congress would never be static.
We have term limits. They’re called elections. If we don’t want people to stay in office past a certain number of years then we will vote them out of that office. And if the majority of voters want their elected official to stay in office, why should there be a law prohibiting it?
In my view, a young, popular president that was elected over and over again could become so entrenched that he or she could effectively become king or dictator. Eventually, that president would have appointed most or all of the Supreme Court, and have so many people in congress, the military, and industry that owed him/her favors that there would be nothing stopping that executive from doing crazy things like making constitutional amendments, etc. Senators and congressman could never have that kind of power, and even state governors don’t have control over the military.
I’m generally opposed to term limits, except when it comes to the president.
There’s nothing wrong with naivete that a few facts can’t set straight! 
Well, the “valid” argument is that FDR broke a tradition going back to Washington, and some believe that “fairness” requires that others get a chance to be president. However, I’m not sure there is a strong case that presidents should be subject to term limits, but congressmen shouldn’t. I just don’t see how a well-reasoned distinction can be made between those offices.
Shoot, if not for that constitutional amendment, we could well have had Clinton re-elected to a third term in 2000. The world would be a lot different.
Well, politicians could always do the honorable thing and recuse themselves after two terms.
Heh…I used honorable and politician in the same sentence. I made a funny! 
the reasoning for the way Supreme Court terms are structured is entirely different than the legislative or executive branches
Term limits are suggested because people are frustrated., not because it would do any good. The system in place rewards congressmen and senators with experience. They get on better and more important committees. A state that dumps their pols after a periodically, will wind up with a rookie with no influence over and over.
So-so. Our immediate past Governor is now under invstigation for taking bribes or knowingly condoning their being taken. A former Governor’s daughter who was a Cabinet member is serving a prison term for similar chicanery. Hunt, however, my example above, and the man who served between his stints, seem to be men of integrity, or at least reasonably so – even if you disagree with their positions, you can see they arrived at and hold them honorably. While it has its faults, I think by and large it works as intended. I’d welcome the opinions of other Tarheels on this.
Clothahump, I would be interested in whether you agree with Heinlein about the application of the scientific method to generaliztions, e.g., about politicians.
Please. They do not “sell out”. Their principles shift dynamically as the situational conditions evolve.
Which has evolved into that configuration for the sole benefit of politicians
:dubious: Bullshit. Government is complicated because society is complicated, and any approach that pretends otherwise is doomed to end in disaster.
Another name for that is “learning.” Og save us from leaders who can’t do it.
The US become a super power with the world’s largest economy might have had just a tad to do with it.
The root cause of a lot of this is that some people can’t conceive that running a hundred billion dollar government is really any more complicated than managing the local McDonalds.