is it un-democratic to limit someones freedom to run for president to two terms. should the American people not be allowed to choose who they want to run the country regardless of how many years they have been in charge.
2007-01-01 03:51:38 · 20 answers · asked by fiddich59 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You may have a point, though there are some theoretical and practical reasons why this is the case.
Theoretically, the US is not a pure democracy, it is rather a democratic republic. We vote for people to REPRESENT us in Congress, rather than having a direct vote. Your vote for president is not even direct democracy. You have the electoral college voting for the president. If we had direct democracy George W. Bush would not have been elected the first time, as Al Gore received more popular votes.
Practically, after FDR ran and was elected four times, those Congressional representatives voted to amend the constitution to limit a president to two terms. They did this partially to limit the power of the chief executive, which some people felt had gotten too strong. If you feel this should be changed, you can write a letter to your Congress person and Senators.
2007-01-01 04:16:06 · answer #1 · answered by Ace Librarian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 22nd amendment sets a limit of two terms for presidential candidates. It was ratified lawfully and by a clear majority, so it is entirely democratic that we do not allow presidents to run for more than two terms. I disagree with Bush's politics, and the faster he's out the door, the better.
2007-01-01 04:03:25 · answer #2 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we could change the Constitution to allow it I would be proud to vote for Bush to have a third term, and yes I do believe the peoople should have that choice even though I realize that Clinton would have probably be in his fourth term now and would still be playing with interns and cigars oin the oval Office.
Remember that the USA is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic with some laws designed to protect us from ourselves.
2007-01-01 03:59:33 · answer #3 · answered by jesuscuresislam 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The limits on the office are set by the same document that created the office, the Constitution. If you want to change the current term limits, then change the Constitution.
2007-01-01 03:54:06 · answer #4 · answered by question_ahoy 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hell no! There is a term limit, this should be applied to Congress as well. The founding fathers never meant for there to be career politicians. They were supposed to go do their civic duty, then return home to their real job!
2007-01-01 04:01:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think ANY president should be allowed to run for a third term. (And just to eliminate a "loophole"...anyone who serves two terms as president should NOT be allowed to run as vice-president, either.)
As to George Bush specifically....not just NO, but HELL NO!
We need him in there again about as much as we need another damn Clinton.
2007-01-01 03:54:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
There is a two term limit for a reason.
2007-01-01 03:54:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dont know much about the constitution do you? There is a two term limit. If you can get it changed be my guest. I would love to see a election between Bush and Bill Clinton.
Clinton would win hands down.
2007-01-01 03:53:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
No, I prefer our Constitution to not be further weakened. 2 terms is the limit.
2007-01-01 03:55:11 · answer #9 · answered by Rich B 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The law was changed because of Franklin Roosevelt. If he was still alive, he'd still be President.
2007-01-01 04:04:42 · answer #10 · answered by Firespider 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋