Should the U.S.A. return to it's old ways and allow presidents to run for more than two terms?
2006-07-20 23:52:37 · 10 answers · asked by ymmxkr 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What president would want to? Look at what the media is doing to Bush? Look what they did to Clinton. Why would any one want to put their family through that?
Two terms is enough.
2006-07-20 23:58:17 · answer #1 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Presidents can serve more than two terms, just not "consecutive" terms.
No, I don't think that should be changed. Democracy is better served with the way it is now. With some presidents elected at young ages below 50, there's a good chance that we will eventually see someone serve more than two terms again.
2006-07-21 06:59:42 · answer #2 · answered by SirCharles 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was a very important reason that congress changed this law after Franklin D Roosevelt died. I remember my elementary textbook saying FDR had garnered enough power that it was difficult to oppose him. Our executive branch has too much power as it is. Our constitution was designed for 3 branches to prevent abuse of power. If we allow a President to remain in office for as long as he wants to run, it will become difficult to keep any president from abusing his authority.
Very bad idea.
2006-07-21 06:59:45 · answer #3 · answered by Searcher 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. We should reduce it to single term limits for all elected officials. Enough of these political dynasties and lifetime Congressthings, we need real progress.
2006-07-21 09:24:51 · answer #4 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO! They can't handle the power they have responsibly now. Eight years is enough to do all kinds of damage to the country. And we can't seem to do anything about the lies and law breaking now. If they were in power any longer their behavior would only get worse.
2006-07-21 07:07:17 · answer #5 · answered by industrialconfusion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
current restriction prevents possibility of President making popular decision instead of right decision. doing what majority of voters want rather than what would be right for the country, eg increase tax, etc
2006-07-21 06:58:23 · answer #6 · answered by tankee531 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Do you really want to turn a maniac into a permanent cheating dictator? How could you vote out someone who runs all the voting machines?
2006-07-21 06:58:45 · answer #7 · answered by DJ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
oh lord no unless they get a good president in there...what do you think.. i think we have not did so well sense bush got in there.. things are out of hand everywhere...but this is my feelings.. i hear their is a lot that like bush..i think we need to help the poor more.. and let those on assistance like ssi, be able to work and beter theirself....find more jobs for the american people...get our people out of the war
2006-07-21 06:56:57 · answer #8 · answered by sanangel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's about the only thing you do right!
For some, you'd have been better to reduce it to no terms. This current joker springs to mind.
2006-07-21 06:57:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Can you imagine Bush or Clinton for another term? Yikes.
2006-07-21 06:55:45 · answer #10 · answered by desiderio 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋