Presidential term limits are legal because they are in the constitution. The constitution is the top dog when it comes to law. If congress passed a law saying that burning flags was illegal, then it would be in violation of the 1st amendment and the law would be struck down. However, if congress gets an amendment to the constitution to outlaw burning flags and it is ratified then it would be against the law to burn flags. The constitution will override any law (in theory that is, depends on the supreme court).
2006-11-16 07:55:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by A.Mercer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There may be state courts who have ruled that congressional term limits have speech/republican government/ other consequences, but I think that in general the U.S. Supreme Court would not rule that term limits would be a violation of the First Amendment, because the JOB of representing is an act, not symbolic speech.
And as mentioned above, after F.D.R. died, the U.S. constitution was amended to prohibit presidents from serving mroe than two terms. A later constitutional amendment trumps an earlier one.
2006-11-16 15:53:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Perdendosi 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Presidential term limits are the result of a constitutional amendment. Congressional term limits would require the same thing but since congress would also have to approve the amendment, it's unlikely to happen.
2006-11-16 16:04:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Congressmen are just one of a larger group, so even if they are there for a long time it isn't as dangerous (unless you're talking Ted Kennedy or some other such lifer-slimeball). If a President were able to have mulitiple terms, he could easily set himself up as the "ruler" of America.
Patrick -- redistricting and the number of seats up for election are two different animals. Redistricting affects the number of registered voters of a certain party in a certain district. The number of seats up for election simply has to do with whose term has ended. The only time MORE seats are added is when the population of a state has increased enough to merit another seat.
2006-11-16 16:39:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Goose&Tonic 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Presidential term limits are in the Constitution.
Congressional term limits are legal, they just don't want them. It seems apparent this year that the voters occasionally are able to kick the bums out, and thus term limits unneeded.
2006-11-16 15:51:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by kingstubborn 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
What we really need is a way to get redistricting out of partisan hands. When there is a Congressional election all the seats should be in play, not just a handful.
2006-11-16 15:56:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Patrick B 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Congress are our representatives, so they represent us, and you can't restrict that. The President is a commander and leader, not a representative. So he isn't representing us as much as he is leading, which doesn't fall under free speech.
2006-11-16 15:52:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
0⤊
1⤋