Despite the fact that I consider Dubya Satan and wish he didn’t even have the frist term, my question is if term limits are a good thing, specifically for a President.
I mean, I thought Clinton was great, and I believe I read that 65 percent of the American voting public would have voted for him again.
Regardless.
Term limits seem to make any Presidential re-election a done deal, and turns them into a lame duck. Sometimes that could be good…they no longer need to heed the party line and some Presidents do good things despite promises made during the election. Sometimes it is bad as nobody figures they need to make nice to the President as the game is over and it is time to start kissing ass for the next candidate.
BUt would it be more fair to allow a person to be President as many times as the public will vote them in?
Honestly, I flip back and forth on term limits. I think turnover for Congress would be a damn fine thing. Maybe 12 years in the house and 12 in the Senate and then go look for honest work.
But that’s largely because Congress becomes calcified and the members can disregard the feelings of their constituents (to a greater or lesser degree) because of the enormous powers of incumbency. And we’ll never know what great statesmen had their careers killed in the cradle because they happened to be in a district controlled by Delay or Waxman or whomever.
But at the same time I can’t see anything in the original intent that means that term limits were considered a good idea to formalize. The mere fact that George Washington turned DOWN more time in office tells me that he considered he could stay in power. And certainly FDR proved that it could happen.
Plus, just speaking as a political watcher, I’d march through a mile of broken glass to see Bill Clinton versus George W Bush no-holds-barred steel cage smackdown.
And you just know WJC would give it another try if he could. Whoa nelly.
Support for term limits tends to wane. When Clinton was going out of course most Republicans said term limits were great. Now that Bush is a two term President a lot of dems would cry foul if we tried to get rid of term limits.
If we were ever going to repeal term limits it would have to happen during a President’s first term or have a proviso that the current President would still have to abide by the two term limit.
Personally my opinion is we’re a representative Democracy, if someone wants to run and run and run and wins and wins and wins then that’s the will of the people and in this case it shouldn’t be denied.
The big reason term limits went in actually had little to do with FDR and everything to do with Harry Truman. The Republicans of the time were so tired of getting their asses kicked in the national elections they wanted to insure Harry couldn’t run again. As it was of course they wrote the amendment specifically so a guy in Truman’s situation (had taken over the office Roosevelt left vacant after only 100 or so days into the term) couldn’t run for reelection.
Another interesting note is in the 20th century LBJ could have been in office for like 10 years because he served less than half of Kennedy’s term so he could have ran for another term of his own.
That is right on target. It’s probably worth noting that the 22nd Amendment has affected the futures of only three men: Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. I think the proper thing to do is to debate its propriety after 01/20/2009, when there will be a first-term president in office. (An attempt to repeal it now would cut sharply into Bush’s more marginal supporters, much as the Court-packing plan injured FDR.)
To the contrary, it was clearly understood at the time and ten years later that it was a move to prevent the Democrats from ever having another FDR. And the amendment as adopted explicitly excluded Truman – “the president at the time of this amendment’s ratification.” (The Republicans were overconfident of being able to defeat him.)
<quick aside> Funny, the Republicans might indeed be in favor of repealing the term limits for the sake of GWB… but as long as WJC is alive, they will never, never chance it. Too bad - THAT would be fun to watch.</quick aside>
Try telling that to the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians who would still be alive if not for Mr Bush’s War. Those are the only presidents directly affected. The 22nd Amendment, in helping determine who runs the most powerful nation on Earth, has affected the future of everyone on the planet alive now as well as everyone born in the future and especially those not born because of the change instituted in 1951.
Not if the amendment were properly framed. It might have a clause like the 22nd Amendment stating it doesn’t apply to anyone already ineligible for reelection. Or perhaps the restriction could be limited to only the next presidential election making Bush Jr and Bill Clinton ineligible to run in 2008 but not afterwards.
Lets not overlook the fact that plenty of support for the measure was found amongst Democrats as well. It is a very rare situation in US history that one party has enough political power to enact constitutional amendments without significant support from the opposition. The amendment was also intended to prevent the Republicans from ever having a FDR.
Instead of a lame duck term, a effective pres can use this term to really get stuff done w/o worry about re-election. I like the 2 term limit, wished it applies to the leg. branch, and won’t be voting for W for a 3rd term.
Why would you prefer to this to Martin Hyde’s more liberal view that, “if someone wants to run and run and run and wins and wins and wins then that’s the will of the people and in this case it shouldn’t be denied”?
But if a president is held responsible to the people who elected him ( and maybe someday her ) he can still be effective in popular ways and reelection will take care of itself. Why would you want an irresponsible president?
I REALLY like the idea of term limits for congress because it’d better ensure ‘new blood’ and fresh ideas in our legislative branch. The fogies we have now, I feel, do not represent me or my views except inasmuch as theirs overlap mine.
The POTUS has little power by comparison. Pretty much any decision from that office can get squished by either of the other two branches. Near as I can tell the role of The President is a formal one that sets a general course for the nation’s domestic & foreign policy. If that policy includes attacking sovereign nations at will, and that diplomatic technique is not affirmed by the general public, then the president’s terms will be limited by the electoral process. Assuming, of course, that the electoral process remains a true representation of the will of the people.
My gut reaction is that I’m with Reeder on this (although I was thinking five years). I have a real hard time arguing against the “will of the people” idea. But my problem lies with the current system, that has a person winning the presidential election, having about a year to work before having to start fundraising. I’d rather see a president be president (ie do the job of being president) for a slightly longer term without spending so much time running for reelection. You could say that a reelected president gets that in the second term, but recent history suggests that second term “lame duck” presidents have a harder time getting things done.
Basically my problem comes down to a person having to run for president as president.
It’s been said (a fancy way of saying I have no cite) that six years is “too short for a good President, and too long for a bad one”.
There was some talk about repealing the amendment back during the last part of Reagan’s presidency. It was dismissed as nothing more than wishful thinking on the Republican’s part. Towards the end of Clinton’s second term there was similar talk, and again, it was dismissed. I think the same will happen here.
The move to get rid of the prohibition on foreign-born presidents seems to have a little more traction, with most people agreeing that it is probably a good idea, but also agreeing that the only reason that it is getting much play at the moment is due to wishful thinking on the part of Arnold’s supporters. It probably won’t happen.
I think the 2 term limit (traditional or legal) is one of the most important factors securing the liberty of our country. You don’t get a situation where a president, the leader of the military, can buckle down and secure his job indefinitely. You get 8 years, then you’re out, period. No strong personalities getting a stranglehold on the job, or getting TOO comfortable with it. I consider that a dangerous situation. Maybe you get the idea that you can make a career out of being President, and take steps to make that happen…
I like Reeder’s idea too, of getting a second go after a specified time off. I feel a lot better with a leader that is guaranteed to get his walking papers after a nice stretch of time.
I don’t recall any prominent lefties calling for the repeal of the two-term limit for Clinton – IIRC, it was all fear-mongering from the right, along the lines of “Bill Clinton’s gonna make himself El Presidente for Life! Quick, donate to our PAC now!”
I have a legion of objections to our current electoral system. But if the manner of election is the problem then doesn’t it make sense to address it directly? A term limit doesn’t fix the problem it only limits the potential damage.
If we fixed our broken electoral system so that the best way for a president to run for reelection was by simply doing the job well, what then would be the need for a term limit?
Different problem, same answer. If the problem is that a president might threaten the liberty of the people while in office then shouldn’t we try to address the problem? If we fixed the institution of the president so that the best way to run for reelection was by ensuring the maximum liberty of the people, what then would be the need for a term limit?
1st of all ‘her’ is assumed in ‘him’ when the gender of ‘him’ is unknown.
Ok with that out of the way, don’t forget we elected the person. If you are totally worried about a irresponsibile pres, how are you going to stop one who says if they win will run again but secretly plans not to. You comment really does not make sense to me.
I feel that the voters of the United States are intelligent enough to vote for nominee or incumbent without the meddling with unnecessary amendments. While I am certainly not a Bush supporter by any means, I respect the democratic process and feel term limits impede it.