Do you think presidents should be eligible for a third term or more in office?

Question

If the people want them to continue being president, it seems like they should be able to.

Answer 1

I think they do enough damage in two terms, maybe.....they should limited to one term!!!

Answer 2

I would have voted for Bill Clinton if he had been eligible for a 3rd term, Frankly I think the President should be elected to one 8 year term. Members of the House of Representatives to one 6 year term and the The members of the Senate to one 12 year term. This might cut down on the partisanship in the White House and Congress. This will happen. (When pigs fly.)

Answer 3

I really wouldn't mind, as long as he or she is elected without any shadows of doubt, meaning that elections were truly clean, with no strange happenings of any sort.

The idea of a President being in office for more than two terms had probably never crossed my mind, until now, since I do feel that President Bush should be the one to have the opportunity to fix the inmense problem with Iraq. It may seem it's taken forever, and might look like a dumb idea to re-elect him to do exactly what he has not been able to do till now. But certain things take a long time "cooking".

I know most of his original staff, which were true thinkers and strategists_whether we ever agreed with any of them or not_are no longer around, and basically he's alone now. But I'm sure he himself just wants to finish what he has started. Whether he succeeds or not with Iraq, well an opportunity should be given him. And also_and this is the way I see it_once he leaves on January 2009, and the troops will not be home by then_whatever other mess arises due to the length of this war_well it will definetely be the Democrats who'll be blamed, even when most of them were against the invasion of Iraq.

Answer 4

Every president that has had a two term presidency has left the office generally being disliked by the majority of the American public. I think 2 is enough, and 3 would create alot more problems.

Answer 5

Absolutely NOT! Nothing against any recent or current president, but that is just a very bad idea. The longer they spend in office, the more they learn about the system and how to manipulate it. It is supposed to be a government "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" not for individual legacy or power trips.

While we are at it, there should be some kind of limits for people in the House and the Senate. Politics should not be a career, it should be service.

Answer 6

If Washington, Roosevelt, and Lincoln would come back to life.... sure [=
but if that rule would apply NOW, gosh for some stupid reason Bush would be our president once again and that would KILL us. So my answer would be....IT DEPENDS. The president should be a highly stabeled person and is ACTUALLY looking out for our country. If so, then why not? he deserves another term or two. I know what you're thinking...well it doesn't really matter if the president is bad or not....we'll just pick a new prez. Hmm...well that didn't happen when Kerry lost =/
so until then....IT DEPENDS.


i hope that made sense [=

Answer 7

No this is not any longer constitutional for invoice Clinton to have a third term as President, the indisputable fact that Franklin Roosevelt served 3 comprehensive words and have been given elected to a 4th term, brought about ratification interior the 50s of a constitutional modification that prohibits serving extra beneficial than 2 words as President. additionally in accordance to this modification a individual can serve 10 years as President provided a President dies in place of work or resigns inflicting vice president to take over. for example while impeachment complaints against invoice Clinton have been interior the technique, rumor had it he might wait until finally January twentieth, 1999 to resign through fact if Al Gore had exchange into President on January twentieth, 1999 or after, then it would have been legal for Al Gore to be elected to 2 comprehensive words as President, yet that resignation in no way occurred. although while Gerald Ford grew to alter into President in 1974 he replaced into ending extra beneficial than 2 years of Nixon's term meaning if Gerald Ford had gotten elected to an entire term in 1976, he does not have been allowed to run in 1980. yet in any case the way it quite works is you will possibly be elected to purely 2 words (4 years each and each term) yet can serve 10 years if dying or resignation of a prior President is two years or much less until now next election.

Answer 8

I think not, only because it would always be in turmoil, or it would be selective in my mind. If I liked the president of course I'd want him/her to continue, but if it was someone that I think was botching things up pretty badly (like the current) I would probably jump off a bridge if he got another run. *shudder*

Because I'd want it to be selective, then I'm going to say no. It'd be better to have a good president for only 4 or 8 years than to have a bad president get a whole 12 years!

Answer 9

I highly doubt that any president could do their job right for that long. Anyone who could be honest, and do what is right wouldn't come close to having the chance. Just ask yourself why we always have to pick between two people that would make horrible presidents.. If we could have a honest govt, and president absolutely.

This country is so screwed up I can bet that Bush will again be president. Whataya wanna bet?

Answer 10

No, and I don't think any public office should be eligible for re-election after their first term whether its 2 or 4 years.

Answer 11

If you lookback at te history--it was popular concern during the FDR presidency that led to amending the Constitutiont to limit predential tenure.

FDR wasn'ttheproblem . But people realized that, inthe future, someone with dictatorial ambitions migh attempt to stay in office indefinately. Our current president proves they were right.