I'm surprised that there is a limit of two terms for a president. Surely if an incumbent president still enjoys popular support they should be able to stand for election for three or more terms.
Isn't this limit also a limit on the democratic process, as it may prevent the popular choice from being elected?
2007-11-21 00:55:46 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
To johndude, no I'm not American so I'm not for or against any candidate.
However I think it should be for the American people to vote out an incumbent (if the incumbent wanted a third term) rather than a legal limit.
In this country (UK) Blair won three elections, 1997, 2001 and 2005. I didn't vote for him, however I respect the right of the majority to elect him 3 or more times.
(He recently resigned of his own choice).
2007-11-21 01:14:16 · update #1
I believe there should be no term limits for anyone. Term limits remove a basic voting right. If the public wants an elected offical out of office, they will vote them out. By having term limits, we are forcing an official to vacate before the voters may want them too.
2007-11-21 00:59:45 · answer #1 · answered by mustagme 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The two term limit is a practical way of making sure that a dynasty does not get established, but does it really prevent families from controling government - Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton(?). The real problem is that a qualified person running for office just can't find the financing to get their message out. Some candidates have the political muscle to get elected just because of contacts - the present incumbant is an example of this.
Term limits in themselves may have valid points - I think age limits should be thought about - Term limits can eliminate valuable experiential knowlede but term limits combined with age limits may be an option. Should a Supreme Court Justice really have a life time appointment?
2007-11-21 09:19:54 · answer #2 · answered by C. C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At one time there were no term limits for the president, but because the republicans were foaming at their mouths due to President Roosevelt being elected for 4 terms, they threw a hissy fit and insisted on ammending the U.S. Constitution so that it now says that a president's term of office is limited to 2 terms.
Funny thing though, every time they get their incompetent boobs in office, like bush, nixon and reagan, they always say that he should be able to run more than 2 terms.
Hypocracy is alive, well, and spreading like wild fire in the republican party.
.
2007-11-21 09:12:39 · answer #3 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The longer ANY politician maintains any office the more political "favors" he owes... the more corrupt he becomes from the power of his office, the less he even pretends to care about the people he is supposed to be serving... And once entrenched, politicians are incredibly hard to get rid of... Incumbents have an edge over newcomers in large part due to name recognition... Personally, I think two terms is sufficient for ANY government employee... Let some new blood in there...
2007-11-21 09:12:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a traditional limit set by our first and greatest President, George Washington. There was no need for a legal term limit in the Constitution since everyone followed it until the Leftist (Democrat) Franklin Roosevelt. If it wasn't for the Amendment that prevents a 3rd term, we would probably be stuck with B.J. Clinton , oops, William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton as President until he dies of old-age, so thank God for this Constitutional Amendment.
The whole point of limiting the President's term is to prevent the formation of a monarchy. King George said that Washington would be King of the U.S. after awhile, so Washington wanted to show him that we are different. Furthermore, our Founding Fathers truly believed that elected Federal officials should serve for a limited time. They never expected (or imagined) people to hang around for 60 years (like Sen. Robert Byrd, Democrat, West Virginia).
2007-11-21 09:02:45 · answer #5 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
It is a limit on the democratic process, but I believe it to be a necessary one. It insures the influx of new ideas after 8 years. I would have voted for Reagan for a third term, especially after who got elected to replace him. Thank God we only had to suffer two terms of Bill Clinton.
2007-11-21 09:05:32 · answer #6 · answered by Michael C 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think there should only be 1 term because the president spend 1/2 of his 1st term trying to get reelected for the second .....what a waste of time....work on our issues and quit trying to be in the lime light....same thing with these senators that are running for president....they should have to give up their postion to run or not run because they are missing voting for the constiuents when they are campaigning....what the heck are they elected to do?????
2007-11-21 09:11:35 · answer #7 · answered by melann 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think term limits are important. While we are a democratic nation, we've learned enough to know that even democracy isn't foolproof. Progressive change and competition are very important in keeping a democracy healthy and a nation strong.
2007-11-21 10:41:51 · answer #8 · answered by zero 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In this country, we've had it both ways. It was decided during the FDR years that 2 terms for President was enough.
2007-11-21 09:08:22 · answer #9 · answered by Mark A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Bush had us in the whole bad enough then ignorance voted him back in only to dig a deeper whole to put us in and as usual the Democrats have to get in office to get us back out of the whole
2007-11-21 10:59:57 · answer #10 · answered by WhAtEvEr....... 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋