Bill Clinton would still be our President:)
2007-09-08 06:30:54 · 12 answers · asked by WORD UP G 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Never!
2007-09-08 06:37:20 · answer #1 · answered by Christopher C 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. I would not repeal the two term limit. At least now messes can be (hopefully) cleaned up after only a maximum of 8 years.
2007-09-08 13:41:46 · answer #2 · answered by Cinnibuns 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely yes,I would repeal it.If a president is doing well,I see no reason why not to elect him/her as long as they are doing a good job.As far as the "clean up messes" every 8 years and other remarks of that sort,we,as a nation,already can clean up the messes every 4 years.It's called an election.If we have a good president in,I don't see how it does anything but cheat America out of a good leader with term limits.We would still have the option of booting him/her out every four years.If there is a president who,after 2 terms of office,is still the voters' choice,it should be just that,the voters choice.I don't see and never have seen,how 2 term limit does anything but cheat America out of a good leader.If they are crummy,vote them out.If they are doing well,why in the heck should they be FORCED out?
2007-09-08 13:53:47 · answer #3 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would replace it with a recall provision so a new election would take place when a super majority 60% in the house voted for it. Presidents that have nothing to lose are ineffectual and sometimes dangerous. Clinton accomplish nothing after Monica, and we would have been rid of Bush a year ago.
2007-09-08 14:16:27 · answer #4 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes but not so Bill Clinton or Bush could be are president but rather to be able to keep the best person at the helm if we ever elected them.
2007-09-08 13:37:56 · answer #5 · answered by Space Pope Nick XVIII 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No but I would switch it to a 6 yr term limited to once.
Spartacus, you and I think alike..
4 years is just enough to start trouble, and never finish it.
8 years is enough to start trouble, finish it, and have a little time to get a stain on some poor girls dress (get in trouble again).
6 just seems appropriate. If you can't finish the trouble you started then get out of the way!! of course this means GWB would be sitting on his ranch right about now?
2007-09-08 13:39:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, and you are right, Clinton would still be our president (God forbid). Two terms are enough. I support two term limits for Senators and six for Representatives.
2007-09-08 13:41:50 · answer #7 · answered by Answers is run by hippocrites 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, that's one very good reason not to repeal it. Of course, if we repealed it now, George Bush might still remain President, so maybe it's not such a bad idea.
2007-09-08 13:40:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No! all President's outlive their usefulness. Though I struggle to find what usefulness George W. Bush ever had to begin with.
2007-09-08 13:45:00 · answer #9 · answered by Jorge D 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
um, I'm going to go with no, and that we need a one term 6 year presidency
2007-09-08 13:37:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋