Am asking because it seems that a President spends two years trying to be re-elected back into office,when he should be running this great country.Do you think any lawmakers will answer this question.Dont bet on it,its not election year.
2007-02-20 19:44:07 · 10 answers · asked by wilsonrove 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
You know, this might be a good idea because then it would emphasize the responsibility of leadership to the President. The President would then have to focus only on his country and not have to face the election season as a priority to keep his job. The only exception to this rule should be is if someone comes in as a successor for a President who dies or resigns, in which if they served less than half the typical term, they can be eligible for a election.
But you know, the same should go for House members and have them serve three years so that the extra year can be focused on establishing who they can be as a congressmen who listens to their constituents and they will not have to worry all that much on keeping their job right after winning the election that was just held. This is why there are too many "yes men" on both sides, people seem to vote in congressmen who are there just to vote. The Senate is good as it is.
2007-02-20 20:09:58 · answer #1 · answered by Alex R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. But I wouldn't object to a 6 and a 2. Or a 7 and a 1. Or a 2 and a 6. Or a 1 and 2 and 1 and 2 and 1 and 1. Or an 8 and a zero. Or a negative 47 and a 55.
2007-02-20 19:52:15 · answer #2 · answered by rayhanks2260 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it matters. Four, five or six years - in our culture, much of the President's time is going to taken up with trying to get re-elected.
By the way, the reason we have an amendment stating that a President can only serve two terms was due to the Republicans. Payback for Franklin D. Roosevelt.
If we didn't have that amendment, who out there doesn't think Clinton would still be in charge. And we wouldn't be in Iraq.
2007-02-20 22:27:43 · answer #3 · answered by buzzzard 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it still wouldn't make any difference. Here in Korea, the president serves one five year term and can not stand for re-election. They are talking about changing it to the US style with two four year terms.
2007-02-20 19:47:19 · answer #4 · answered by milwaukiedave 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we should be allowed to recall each and every one of our so called government officials. If the Constitution has one flaw in it. That flaw is that it leaves it up to the politicians to remove one of their own. We the people should be allowed to do that on our own.
2007-02-20 19:49:10 · answer #5 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We need a world government and people who all agree it is time to get our !Starships! moving before the planets resources are diminished so much we all starve to death.
2007-02-20 20:00:21 · answer #6 · answered by d4d9er 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think 5 years are sufficient
2007-02-20 19:54:15 · answer #7 · answered by khuranapvp 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sorry buddy Bush's war Era expire in 2008
2007-02-21 01:24:10 · answer #8 · answered by Gunny 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it is a good idea, at least not these days, with war criminals becoming US presidents or vice verse.
2007-02-20 20:35:50 · answer #9 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
es, One six year term sounds like a good idea.
2007-02-20 19:54:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋