i used to think it was stupid, if you had a good president then as long as he continued to get voted in he could stay, but then i wonder if the % of people in the US have the best interests of the country in mind when they vote. Your thoughts?
2007-04-08 19:52:34 · 10 answers · asked by hodgetts21 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The brilliance of the US Constitution is that it set up a government not only for, by, and of the people, but also in spite of them. The framers knew there would be bad presidents, legislators, and judges. But the government still works despite all of that.
I think the 22nd amendment fits right in with that spirit. Let the people choose their government, but don't let them screw things up too badly.
So, bottom line, no I don't think term limits are bad.
2007-04-08 20:08:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Term limits are a good idea because less than 50% of eligible voters do vote, and with that a President could stay in power indefinitely. Term limits are not so necessary when the majority of citizens do vote. I would favor limits on the legislative branch to cut down on the corruption that the incumbents invariably get into prostituting themselves for campaign contributions.
2007-04-08 20:09:17 · answer #2 · answered by redd headd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's good to support change in the government. And bad for that if we do have a good president, he can only serve 8 years and be gone... But then again his vice could come and take his place with much of the same policies.
At first it wasn't in the constitution (if it even is now)... George Washington just set the bar by not going for a third term.
2007-04-08 20:00:40 · answer #3 · answered by jaaaaaaaa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm. Knowing how stupid Americans are in voting
We could have Clinton, President for life
Or George W. Bush, President for life.
I prefer to get a new president ever 4 or 8 years. Gives me new things to complain about.
2007-04-08 20:01:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Term limits are good. . . 2 more years, need I say more?
Besides that, term limits are intended to keep an individual (or a group--Hitler was elected, too) from gaining too much power and changing the overall structure of the government.
2007-04-08 20:01:02 · answer #5 · answered by mayhemmistress 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I think the system is best as is.
It is not a perfect system by any means, but last thing we would want is a Chavez or Putin in power.
Right now there are checks and balances in place to keep a power hungry moglomaniac (See Nancy Pelosi) from changing the constitution. Just as the fore fathers wanted it.
2007-04-08 20:05:42 · answer #6 · answered by Jack L. W. 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It may be best to have one, six-year term instead of having a max of two, four-year terms. That way more could be accomplished in 6 years. We would also have more of an infusion of fresh ideas and personalities.
2007-04-08 21:07:29 · answer #7 · answered by gone 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It had the POTENTIAL to be good. But, because it was not reciprocal [e.g. the Congress did not have term limits imposed upon them] it became a bad idea.
2007-04-08 21:57:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question appears to be rhetorical, given the current administration in power.
Four more years of "stay the course" would plunge us into the trillions in National debt...
2007-04-08 21:15:04 · answer #9 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it will not be a YES or a NO because each have advantages and
disadvantages
2007-04-08 19:57:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋