2007-08-28 08:19:17 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No.
It is a proper balance of power to limit the time in office of a President to eight years.
2007-08-28 09:21:51 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You'd actually have to change the Constitution, specifically the 22ND amendment. I'm more in favor of an amendment that would set term limits for Representatives, Senators, and Federal Judges (who serve for life).
The Constitution was written to prevent a monarchy. Prior to FDR the most any president served was 2 terms. An unofficial limit established by George Washington. In 1951 Congress was too afraid of a president becoming too powerful (like FDR) so the 22ND amendment was ratified. Too bad they didn't include limits on themselves or Federal Judges.
Edit: NDGBILL While I'm sure you understand the "letter" of the law, I think you're missing the "intent" of the law. The framers of the Constitution never intended for government service to become the "full-time" job that it has. Of course I use the term "full-time" very loosely considering most congressmen/women (that includes both reps. and senators) only "work" about 6 months a year. The rest of the time they're campaigning, or working the lecture circuit, or vacationing. Washington could probably have been president for life (in fact he was asked to be), however he made more money at Mount Vernon (his plantation) than he ever did as president, and decided after his second term it was time to go back to work.
2007-08-28 15:25:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course it should .It should never have been changed in the first place after FDR.
To set any term limits on any elected postion is simply an anathama to very concept of DEMOCRACY let alone FREEDOM.
Supporters of term limits are really saying that the masses (that is you and me ) are simply too DUMB IGNORANT and STUPID to know what they want .
These anti-democracy elitists are telling us ,WE THE PEOPLE, that we cannot choose who the hell WE WANT as President .
What friggin arrogance and beligerence is that .
Every argument for term limits is an argument that is based upon the assumption that voters are not to be trusted period.
If WE THE PEOPLE want somebody to have a third term that must be OUR choice ,noone elses.
2007-08-28 15:53:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No that is a very bad idea. It would change the office to a popularity contest. Good leadership requires tough decisions from time to time. If the President was always worried about getting re elected nothing difficult would ever get done.
We need to get rid of professional politicians.
2007-08-28 15:25:51 · answer #4 · answered by easyericlife 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. We have already had enough years of Bush/Clinton/Bush and it's time to let someone else govern. This is not a monarchy where only one or two families get to rule.
8 years of GWHB as VP followed by 4 years as Pres., 8 years of Bill Clinton as President followed by 8 years of GWB as President - that's 28 years - almost 3 DECADES of 2 families in charge. TOO LONG. Time for change.
2007-08-28 15:23:49 · answer #5 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's not in the election laws, it's in the Constitution, and it would be very hard to change this again. The idea here is to keep any one person from ever becoming too powerful, and I think it's a good one.
2007-08-28 15:23:59 · answer #6 · answered by Thomas M 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Only if we also amended the laws to be certain that congress and courts were primarily representative of the opposite party of the president. We need our checks and balances or every thing is lost. But all in all, I don't really like the idea.
2007-08-28 15:26:47 · answer #7 · answered by zero 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
NO!...if we have learned anything in the last seven years, it is the awesome power that office holds. one person with that much power needs some restraining factor...term limit is all that's available.
electorally, we have learned that a group of American citizens can smugly claim they only need to convince 50% plus one, that their brand is the best, (and the 49% can go to the infernal region). this is no prescription for running a country sucessfully, (as we can see with our own eyes).
2007-08-28 15:24:14 · answer #8 · answered by bilez1 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes. If the population wants to elect a king for themselves, they should have the freedom to do that.
2007-08-28 15:25:49 · answer #9 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No..it is too important of a position to put in that position.
Maybe we should limit terms in congress as well.
2007-08-28 15:23:42 · answer #10 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋