Should presidents be allowed to serve more than 2 terms?

Question

Removal of the 2 term limit is now a proposal before congress! What are your thoughts?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52246

Answer 1

nope! presidents shouldnt be allowed to serve more than two terms in office. Roosevelt is the only president that has served more than two full terms in office. from my stand point, any more than 8 years in office would no longer fit our democratic ways (we dont really want a dictator, would we?) ideally, its all about having a system of checks and balances.

Answer 2

It really amazes me how many of the previous answerers DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE!

In order for this to happen, a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution will need to be ratified by the states. This would take several years to happen. The 22nd Amendment (the one that sets the term limit of the President) took 4 years to approve. Most amendments have taken 2 years or more (the 27th too over 200 years!). So even if it passed, Bush would out of office by that time. He could come back later and run for a 3rd nonconsecutive term, but so could Clinton if he wanted to.

Personally, I would like to keep the term limit of the President, and institute term limits for the House and Senate. Two terms for Senate, and 4 terms for the House. Too many of our legislators have been career politicians. Just look at Strom Thurmond. He was in the U.S. Senate from 1954 until just before his death in 2003. And Robert Byrd has been in the Senate since 1959, and is still serving.

Answer 3

a prepare isn't regulation. And confident, Republicans did make it a regulation. Presidents get elected each and every 4 years. The founders did not positioned term limits interior the form. there are situations, like the FDR case while a president is fantastic that the country might prefer him for extra suitable than 2 words. finally that should be the selection of electorate. The thought that if a president served extra suitable than 2 words he will become a dictator is stupid. He nevertheless has to get re-elected each and every 4 years. it stands out as the selection of the persons and that i don't have self belief that any regulation or any "custom" ought to eliminate the will of the persons. If we choose we like the president and decide to sign him on for yet another 4 years we ought to continuously have the alternative. The founders did not sense that element era limits have been needed, they believed it became the selection of the persons. by using how, I carry a masters degree too. It would not make you the authority of something, it purely means you have finished a particular direction of learn. i understand others who've extremely some stages and that they are nevertheless dumber than a rock.

Answer 4

It depends on the situation. If there was an extraordinary president who was doing something very different from everyone else, and everyone really liked them, then I guess it might be OK.

But if it is just ordinary old George Bush, then I think 2 terms is more than enough.

In Venezuela though, where there is also talk of holding a referendum to change their constitution to allow people to serve more than two terms, I think it makes sense. Although I still would have preferred that they try to train up a successor.

Answer 5

During times of crisis, it can be very stressfull on the nation to change presidents. Also, if a president is doing a good job it seems like a bad idea to replace him. So yes I think presidents should be allowed to serve more than 2 terms. I think there should be certain restrictions on this though. Like the aproval rating has to be 60% or more or something like that.

Answer 6

I am totally against it.... The past few presidents and quite a few before them show that a president can do enough damage in one or two terms.... no need to extend the country's misery...

I shudder to think what this country and the world would be like if Ross Parrot had been able to throw a third election to the clinton thingy..... Bush a third term? No.... he is too soft on terror, he needs to get totally MEAN(Political Correctness is making him weak and ill, like a Democrat) and Bush is a total FAILURE on the ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION.... I can only assume that corruption is the reason... same as clinton and others.

Answer 7

Don't pass this now, while Bush is in office, because too many Democrats will fall over from heart attacks if Bush is allowed to run again. As much as I disrespect the beliefs of the Democrats, I don't want to see them die from shock. But yes, after Bush is out of office, repeal the 22nd amendment and allow any future President to run and run and run 'til their dead.

Answer 8

No. I do not agree, because there would be too much control of that party, and there are other parties that deserve the chance of presidency in our country. To me, it's all about fairness, and not one party hogging the stand! :)

Answer 9

Eight years is enough of damages if the president sucks.

I will say no more than 10 years.

Answer 10

the second term should be removed,what the pres is doing in the first term...?