2007-01-09 23:07:29 · 9 answers · asked by pnatt89 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It would end all this mess of George W. Bush being an unnecessary lame duck.
2007-01-09 23:09:06 · update #1
Why does the president have separate powers?
2007-01-09 23:12:38 · update #2
It's stupid how the president can't be voted out now!
2007-01-09 23:13:09 · update #3
Agreed, it would be too much. Although, George W. Bush should be held more accountable for his actions by the current congress if they decide not to impeach the president for his crimes.
2007-01-09 23:26:13 · update #4
As long as we have the power to Impeach, four years is fine. The President has separate powers so that no one Branch of Government can take over. They are Executive, Judicial and Legislative.
2007-01-09 23:13:04 · answer #1 · answered by Debra D 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No.
As it is, members of the House of Representitives are constantly campaigning because as soon as they get elected, they have only two years left until the next election.
Personally, I like it the way it is. Alternatives would range anywhere from no term limits (as we had with Roosevelt) and a single term of x number of years (as many countries have).
Presidents need 8 years to be effective in certain circumstances, and only 4 years in others. Overhauling the intelligence community will likely be one of Bush's positive legacies that required more than 4 years, and the tax cuts will be a positive legacy that he only needed 2 or 3 years to accomplish.
2007-01-09 23:20:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
This hate Bush and bash Bush at all cost is getting old guys.
Face it in less than 2 years he is gone and you better come up with a plan besides we are not Bush.
2007-01-09 23:29:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It has been suggested that there would be 2 Six year terms...... That would be a blessing for Us having 6 more Years to enjoy a great president like GW.
2007-01-09 23:13:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It will be joke and no one will be able to implement his/her policies. And then they will have this lame excuse that they got very short time to do something wothwile for the masses.
2007-01-09 23:15:53 · answer #5 · answered by Hasnain Kazmi 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. We do not change the Constitution to satisfy part of the people.
2007-01-09 23:14:21 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
considering, how long the campaigns are, not to mention stress of being on the campaign trail...I think the terms are best left alone.
2007-01-09 23:23:29 · answer #7 · answered by AD 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And perpetually expose ourselves to election year nonsense? No thanks, the old way will be just fine.
2007-01-09 23:13:20 · answer #8 · answered by Lyn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-01-09 23:11:24 · answer #9 · answered by Dr Dee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋