English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

If by government you mean elected officials, I certainly do think there should be limits on number of terms a person can serve.

2007-11-02 06:44:35 · answer #1 · answered by p h 6 · 1 0

There already is a maximum term but the incumbent government has the freedom to choose to invoke a general election before that full term and it is not surprisingly done so at a time as tactically beneficial to that government as possible.

Since it has been recently mooted by the Lib Dems I am in favour of fixed term government with set periods of office.

2007-11-02 06:49:29 · answer #2 · answered by 203 7 · 2 0

Without being offensive, I would like to ask...how old are you? I am a child of the 60's and a parent of the 70's. Believe me, if there were a way for every person on the planet to be in a harmoneous zone, the word "government" wouldn't exsist!
However, that is a pipe dream! The term "government" is a blanket word for all of the disciplines encompassed by it. Most factions of "government" do have a time limit attatchment. "Government" offices are too numerous to list within the context of this response.

2007-11-02 07:03:17 · answer #3 · answered by tampagramma 3 · 0 2

ten minutes,
any body who seeks power, should be denied it
just look at the goon running America.

Every 5 years there is an election in the UK. in America a president is only allowed to preside for two terms of office (8 years) that should also happen here.

2007-11-02 06:55:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think there should be a competency test administered. Remember Strom Thurmond? He was doty as a fruit cake when he died, in office. Also, Reagan was obviously suffering from, though he did not admit it until he was out of office, alzheimer's. Once an elected official reaches a certain age, or starts acting in a peculiar manner, they should be evaluated and removed if necessary.

2007-11-02 06:47:04 · answer #5 · answered by momatad 4 · 2 2

We should extend the time that Parliament spends in recess...the country gets on swimmingly when the b*stards aren't making legislations.....How does 5 years in recess two weeks in session sound?

2007-11-02 11:32:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We do, it's five years. What we don't have is a minimum term, and we don't have fixed dates on which election must be called. Nor is there any limit on how long one person can be PM, as long as the voters keep electing them

2007-11-02 06:56:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

One term, 6 years.lobbyist should be outlawed for they are the people who are really running our government, their money buys your elected official sooner or later, if your elected official doesn't play ball, the lobbyist will spend big bucks to oust him/her at the next election.

2007-11-02 06:50:18 · answer #8 · answered by niddlie diddle 6 · 1 1

The Scottish Parliament is FIXED .. every 4 years... stops any manipulation

2007-11-02 06:51:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Yes, we should. This country has deviated so far from the intentions of the founding fathers that if they came back for a visit today...I have the feeling we would get the following memo

TO: The People

FROM: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Adams, and all signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the entire First Continental Congress.

On this 231st anniversary of our independence, those of us you call the “Founding Fathers” have assembled in Continental Congress in heaven to assess the condition of the Republic we bequeathed to you.

We have observed that America has become the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. Be wary, so was the British Empire in 1776.

We must confess that we are annoyed by your habit of misinterpreting our words. In the Declaration of Independence, we acknowledge that, “...inalienable rights that are endowed by our creator.”

Don’t you realize that absent a Creator there are no inalienable rights?

Take the First Amendment, where we said, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” you always neglect the other half of the injunction, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In the Second Amendment, we said the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. Remember, if private citizens hadn’t owned guns there would have been no Lexington or Concord. Why would we bother guaranteeing a collective right to arm state militias? If you ever wake up to what’s going on, your leaders will have cause to fear an armed citizenry.

You seem to view the rights in the first ten amendments as grants of power to the Federal government. We intended the Bill of Rights as a RESTRAINT on government, not as a restraint on the people.

We fought to the death to rid America of a Monarchy. Then, you established an elected aristocracy. We were farmers, merchants and professionals who resumed our careers after a brief term of service and so we never lost touch with our constituents. You have allowed it to become a career opportunity for your politicians.

You are now governed by an elite so different from yourselves that they almost constitute a separate species! You have allowed your elected “rulers” to hold office for 20 or 30 years, becoming detached from their roots, while rewarding themselves with lavish emoluments and pensions. WE revolted over taxation without representation. YOU condone serfdom.

WE revolted over a modest tax on tea. YOU have allowed your tax burden to become staggering. Despite the enormous expenditures of your prodigal politicians, even they can’t spend it all. And still, many resist returning the federal surplus to its rightful owners.

In our Declaration of Independence, we accuse King George III of, “sending hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,” and now you complacently tolerate a bureaucracy that resembles all Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. “Harass our people?” today you allow bureaucrats to tell you how to run your business, build on your property and raise your children. “Eat out their substance?” Today you allow the government to make decisions for you regarding your health and welfare.

We envisioned the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of government that interprets laws based on the clear meaning of the English language. You have allowed your courts to become a law unto itself – raising taxes, ordering private relationships and substituting their will for that of the people.

Ben Franklin said, “We gave you a Republic, if you can keep it.”

From our vantage point it doesn’t look promising.

If we were alive today, we’d raise another rebellion.

2007-11-02 06:48:57 · answer #10 · answered by flaming_liberal415 4 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers