2007-04-11 08:55:32 · 38 answers · asked by flloyd184 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No.
We shouldn't have only two selections either.
We don't live in a democracy its demo-crazy!
2007-04-11 08:58:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
I think we should make three terms the limit.
With two terms, the President inevitably starts becoming a lame duck President about halfway into his second term.
There is no danger in having three terms. People are more politically savvy nowadays, so unless the candidate were stellar, he'd never get elected for a third term anyway. However, the possibility that he could run would help ensure that he has full power throughout the course of his second term.
Imagine if Reagan had been younger and was able to run for a third term. He started so many great things he was never able to finish. Even the USSR didn't start divesting itself of its satellites until he had already left office. I think Reagan would have kept Russia as a better friend to the United States had he been around one more term.
2007-04-11 09:19:36 · answer #2 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never. The founders of our country believed that power corrupts, and never wanted the presidency to resemble a monarchy.George Washington did 2 terms, and that was considered the maximum until FDR was elected 4 times. A few years later, the constitution was amended to restrict the President to 2 terms. The fact that this was put into the constitution tells you how strongly people believed that the President's time in office should end at the 8 year mark.
2007-04-11 08:59:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Regardless of how good or bad a pres is. The 2 term limit is a good restriction. George Washington was invited to serve more than 2 terms but turned it down out of fear that the American president would become a king.
2007-04-11 09:00:07 · answer #4 · answered by Aaron S 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the American public would allow it. As long as the terms stayed at 4 years and the president had to re run for office. Then I wouldn't see a problem with it.
2007-04-11 08:59:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The shape limits it to 2 words, without point out of no count if or no longer they are consecutive or no longer. So confident, a one-term President can, conceivably, come back and be elected back, yet might desire to no longer then be re-elected. A 2-term President can't be elected back.
2016-10-21 21:25:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, sometimes one is too much. It would also be nice to have a wider selection than just two. I can pick 100 different salad dressings at the grocery store, but I've only got 2 choices for president?!
2007-04-11 09:04:32 · answer #7 · answered by genmalia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only two ever did (Both Roosevelts) and only one was successful. Everybody else ran for one or two terms. Tradition is in favor of no more than two. Now it is in the Constitution and too hard to change back so just leave it alone.
2007-04-11 09:02:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because other people should have a turn. The presidents had their 4 years to prove how good they would make U.S., and once they are done it's up to the Americans to help keep up the good work.
2007-04-11 09:03:42 · answer #9 · answered by Ashii Elaine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the amendment to restrict their terms is unconstitutional, but agree that they should be restricted.
I also believe that until congress is term limited our country will continue to decline.
You have to ask yourself, what good congressman proposed the president be term limited. ANy bets on which party they belonged to.
2007-04-11 09:04:36 · answer #10 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wish Bill Clinton could run again! I would vote for him in a heart beat!
2007-04-11 09:15:52 · answer #11 · answered by rose 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋