Presidential Term Limit is America's DUMBEST Law

[glarius]

I'm going to say something that is probably going to anger people....I think the dumbest thing you Americans have done is having a term limit on your president....Without this DUMB law you would probably still have Bill Clinton as your president and he would have found a way to solve the Saddam problem without attacking Iraq..... and THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD NOT BE MAD AT YOU as they are now!..He would possibly be able to solve the Israeli-Palestine problem, which he was close to doing when his term ended.. ...I can't imagine the world would be so in turmoil with Clinton in the White House..... I don't get it at all....the rationale for this term limit law..... If it's reallly a democracy, should not the people be able elect their choice for president as often as they want?.... ...I'm not American so I'm going out on a limb and sticking my nose in here, but I mean no disrespect...It's just my opinion.:loveya:

[Brucey]

1. Probably right,

the term limit idea can be troubling... but if a deceptive incumbent has total media control, then a limit is a good thing.

[glarius]

4. That sounds kind of paranoid

It's almost like saying "I'm never going to cross the street again because there's always the chance I'll be hit by a car." :shrug:

[Brucey]

19. Maybe. If you've been hit a lot. But more what I mean

is that you should look both ways before you cross. I'm against term limits, but worried about a media that works for the repugs.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. The reason is FDR

The only President to serve more than two terms was FDR. The Republicans were so mad about this that it was they who pushed through the term limits amendment. Although you may be correct in your assessment of Clinton, the GOP felt sad about the amendment themselves back in '88, when Ronnie Prettyman couldn't run again.

[chaumont58]

17. The repukes captured both congressional houses in '46

and thus were able to get the constitution amendment passed. That congress did a lot of mischief, and Truman was able to use them, labled 'The Do nothing Congress' in his '48 campaign.

[coda]

Yeah he did. They were kicked out in mass in '48.

We need a reversal of that magnitude.

[Starpass]

3. Think "Bush" and thank god it's there!!!

I'm afraid that if we end up with another 4 years of him and a repuke Congress, some idiot will actually push for this. Then I think we might as well pack up and take the Dem Part to another country. I think beautiful downtown Baghdad would even sound better!!!!!

[glarius]

5. But my point is without this law Bush would not have been elected and

Clinton would have served another term....

[REP]

6. ...Except Reagan Would Still Be President

When it comes to FDR and even Clinton, term limits seem like a bad idea, but they work for us as well.

[glarius]

9. You can't assume that!....His aldzheimers for one would have taken him

out of the picture....and there is ALWAYS HOPE of electing someone else!

[Man_in_the_Moon]

7. Erm, Forget about Clinton, think of Reagan

Without it Reagan would have served til at least 92, probably even 96 (or maybe would have stepped down in between 92 and 96) and then Poppy shrub would have run and probably been elected...

Without that 'dumb law' there probably would have been no Clinton Presidency.

[tom_paine]

8. No way, Glarius

One of the biggest checks on an Imperial Presidency is the 22nd Amendment. Even though the Repugs instituted it because of FDR a couple points come to mind.

Geo. Washington vowed to serve no more than two terms (when he could have easily served for life) thus cementing (whatever his other faults and flaws were and certainly he had them like anyone else) his greatness. At certain points along the path, where people like Jackson, Grant or Teddy Roosevelt had the chance they refused to take advantage of it. It was a Presidential Tradition (like the President never wearing military uniform).

Whatever FDRs reasons (and perhaps the 1936 Republican Coup that was foiled by Gen. Smedley Butler had something to do with his decision) he was the first to break with that 150 year tradition.

So I have no problem with codifying was in essence was in effect through the entirety of the Old American Republic.

So here, I'm going to think like the Old Republic was still in effect and say that, even though in the short term it was created "against" our side, which was gaining too much unchecked power, it was a good thing in the long run and I don't mind it not a bit.

And in the end it will have at least forced the Bushes to give every idiot in their family a chance at the reins (thus increasing the chance we might get a "good" one, a Vespasian after 2030) instead of just having Bush the Stupider serve for life like Idi Amin Dada.

[knight_of_the_star]

29. FDR kept going

He kept going as president because the country needed him more than anything else. There was no one else who really could step up to the plate so he kept it going. That and he was continually nominated by his party and he did his duty and kept going.

[glarius]

10. OK I surrender...you all seem to like it....But I still say it's not real

democracy and you always have the hope of electing someone else if the incumbent is not satisfactory....You all seem to assume that Reagan's reign was unstoppable...You're giving up too easily...IMO

[benddem]

11. The biggest problem with abolishing term limits

like Congress...the repugs only wanted term limits when the Dems had control. Notice how many have gone back on their promise to restrict their number of terms. Newt Gingrich was the worst...I wrote to him and said I'd believe in term limits if he would limit his. He didn't.
No doubt there were enough saps around to vote Reagan a third term.
There will also be enough people stupid enough to vote for Chimpy again.;(

[rock]

12. Not the dumbest by a long shot

but nevertheless dumb.

[TheDonkey]

13. We shouldn't need term limits if people were good voters...

but of course that is a joke. If we didn't have term limits Regean would of served 3-4 terms and changed America and the world with it. I don't even think Clinton needed another term, his 8 years was good but it was time for a Gore presidency.

[NewsTalk]

14. I'm with you, Glarius

I respect the views of those who see term limits as a positive thing if it keeps the damage from a Reagan or a * to just eight years. But I think, like you, that it is an anti-democratic (small "d") law that takes away the rights of me and my fellow voters to choose who we want in that office.

Of course, that's assuming the will of the people can overcome the Supreme Court of Diebold, but still...

[Paragon]

15. I love term limits

Limit EVERYONE to one term. Politicians would actually become public servants, and many more people would become involved in the process.

[glarius]

16. Here's my thought...take it for what it's worth....

If someone is in office a long time, with enough support for another candidate, he can be defeated in an election...There is always that hope, but with the term limit law....that's IT!....There's no recourse, no matter how the people might long to keep the person in office.

[Procopius]

21. I agree and maybe 3rd parties would get elected too n/t

[jobendorfer]

18. a historical perspective

This is a little bit rushed, but: once upon a time, there
was a Roman Republic. They started having problems --
barbarians at the fringes of the empire, enemy foriegn
powers, etc.

The Senate's first solution was to appoint military leaders
and grant them some short-term extra powers to manage a crisis
(remember: big empire, no telephones -- "delegation" had a
whole different meaning back then.)

Then they started appointing crisis managers to ten year
terms and giving them pretty much total political and
military power during that period. At the end of the
ten year period, back to normal business.

Then these "dictators", as they were called, started getting
longer and longer terms, and the Senate starting handling
less and less of the Republic's business.

Then along came a guy named "Augustus", and they started
having "dictators-for-life". And the Senate turned into a
body that rubber-stamped whatever the dictator decided.

Yep, term limits are a modification to pure democracy.
But history shows that unchecked power is highly corrupting,
and I for one am very glad that we limit Presidents to 8
years in office.

J.

[glarius]

20. Sorry, but I don't see this as a valid analogy

In America every person has a vote!....There is no way your government could morph into what you describe...IMO....:)

[Procopius]

22. Not everyone friend

Repukes have seen to that!

[Exultant Democracy]

23. You would be right, if…

We had a multi party parliamentary system. In America the two party winner takes all electoral system gives a whole lot of power with very little oversight in quite a few areas to our president. All we would need is one rethugs prez for life to wipe away the last vestiges of democracy that we have left.

[Yupster]

24. Overall, I'm for the two term limit

We may lose a third term of a good president every 50 years or so, but we don't have to worry about the president for life stuff that so many countries get burdened with.

PS - when the Confederate constitutional convention wrote its constitution, they made very few changes to the existing US document. One change they did make was a limit on presidentiaal terms. They had a six-year term and limited to one term only.

[glarius]

25. "we don't have to worry about the president for life stuff that so many

countries get burdened with.".....What countries are you referring to?....Great Britain, Australia and my country Canada for instance do not have term limits and our leaders are not there for life!...I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm no expert on these matters but I really wonder at the wisdom of your system....Perhaps there is something I don't understand, but it worked well for you through FDR, so why wouldn't it again?

[Yupster]

26. First one that came to mind was Cuba

I'm afraid that a corrupt administration could over time turn itself into a dictatorship.

I guess Hitler would be a good example. He was legally elected, and then over time turned himself into a legal dictator or a president for life.

[glarius]

27. But Cuba's leader was not elected for 1 or 2 or any amount of terms!

He seized office in a bloody revolution....And Hitler....well...he's a lesson for everyone...Anyway, it's none of my business how you in the U.S.A run your government and I probably shouldn't have brought it up....I just pray that your next election sees the end of the Bush government....:)

[Yupster]

31. Others can help here

but I think Castro is reelected from time to time.

The Reichstag formally reelected Hitler each time the emabling legislation came due for his legal dictatorship too.

Same with Saddam Hussein. He was reelected every so many years.

[glarius]

33. Not re-elected in the same sense as our leaders are....It's a formality

only....There's no one else on the ticket.

[uptohere]

28. Reagan would probably still be president without limits

Altzheimers or not.

[burr]

30. Having an all powerful-appointed President is stupid!

But this is how the our government works under our holy Constitution. The Congress can choose not to send troops, but the President can order this anyway. The people may want their constitutional rights protected, but the President can appoint any damn judge he wants who doesn't give a shit about the Bill of Rights. The majority might of elected one person to be President, but the Selectoral College may pick the choice of the elite.

So what is new about this? I have always felt changes were in order. I would abolish the President, have a national domestic Governor and a Secretary of State who answer to Congress not to a President. The domestic Governor would still have the power of the veto pen, but like the Secretaries of Government will be elected by popular vote. Judges would be randomly drafted based on their abilities as lawyers and community service, not on their political beliefs. And the Supreme Court would have limits, not lifetime terms.

Finally unlike you, I would limit Congressmen, Senators, and the those in the executive branch to a six year limitation on how long they can stay in office. There are many comman people in our country who have great ideas and would be great public servants, but never get the chance because of incumbents who serve 10, 20, even 40 years in these offices. We need a new approach, fresh ideas, and to give everyone who wants this opportunity to serve..not just the elite!

[Yupster]

32. Angrew Jackson lost the election of 1824

when he easily won the popular vote and easily won the electoral vote.

[burr]

37. So that's why we still have the Selectoral College!

and I thought it was the House that picked the President that year! :shrug:

[Yupster]

41. Yes the House did pick the prez

and it picked J Q Adams even though Jackson easily won the popular vote and easily won the electoral vote.

[Clete]

34. I think also Al Gore would have continued his policies also.

So there is the possibility that there were plans in the works to steal the election from Gore, which means they could have stolen it from Clinton, as well, if he had run a third term. I think though if it had come down to the Supreme Court decision, Bill would have pulled an ace out of his sleeve with the result of exposing the cheaters, which Al didn't do.

I wish we would change this law. We can limit terms by voting the Presidents we don't like out of office, like we're going to vote Bush out of office in 2004, if he isn't forced to resign before then. That too is a looming possibility. There are Republicans who are getting suspicious about Bush's sanity and competence as well.

[Liberal_Dog]

35. How About This?

I believe that it is unfair to have a term limit only for the President of the United States.

I would propose a 12 year limit for the President, but also for Senators and Representatives as well.

[glarius]

38. I've read all the arguments posted here and I'm unconvinced term limits

are a good thing.I may have a simplistic way of thinking, but I still believe that the people have the right to elect and re-elect who they WANT to office. If you don't get the votes...you're not elected....All these dire schemes that are suggested here, just don't register with me...I don't understand all this suspicion of your government becoming some terrible horror that some have suggested...The Canadian Alliance Party (a right wing party) in my country is starting to try and make Canadians suspicious of our government by suggesting all kinds of far-out scenarios...They are mailing out literature (I received one)accusing our P.M. Chretien of being anti-American and ruining our relations with your country because Chretien wouldn't join the Iraq attack...They were around 12% in the polls and I heard today they are slipping...maybe to single digits....It would seem they are not convincing anyone. I guess this is off the point... but I can see where I'm miles away from the thinking of most of you in the area of term limits or no term limits....Anyway God bless you all and I'll keep on praying whatever Democrat wins the nomination, beats Bush in 2004!

[Yupster]

42. Thurmond and Byrd prove term limits are a good thing

Term limits are not to replace Republicans with Democrats. They are to replace Democrats with Democrats or Republicans with Republicans.

In South Carolina, no Democrat could beat Strom Thurmond even in his mummified state because South Carolina is such a Republican state and no Republican would run against him because he was a legend. Therefore, he sould serve until he was declared dead or retired after dying, though not officially.

Same thing in West Virginia. No Republican could beat the %$^%$ former kleagle of the $%$#$% Ku Klux Klan Massa Bobby Byrd because it's always been a Democratic state. And no Democrat would dare run against him, so we will all have to listen to lectures from this racist sack of $%$#%^ until he gets too senile to remmeber to file for reelection.

Term limits wouldn't have changed the make-up of the senate a bit. We'd still have a Republican from S Carolina and a Democrat from West Virginia, but we wouldn't be embarrassed by these two relics of a much worse time, though in fairness to the departed Senator Thurmond, at least he never joined the Klan.

[glarius]

43. I understand your point but

I still think that though there will always be exceptions to the rule, and scoundrels will be kept in office sometimes, in my opinion, overall it's better to let the people decide who they want...
:)

[LWolf]

36. I'm ambivalent.

I don't think you toss people out just when they've established themselves in the job. I'd like longer terms.

I can agree with you for the moment, though, just having watched TBD at the Harkin steak fry!

[gully]

39. I thought about that...

But then I think we could still have Reagan for cripes sakes! EEK!

[glarius]

40. Why do you assume Reagan's mental problems wouldn't have been

revealed?....I still think taking all things into consideration, it's better to allow the people to vote for who they want when they want...:shrug:

[gully]

44. I understand, and it would be simple if the Media and corporations

didn't own the brains of the majority of Americans. But, I'd be happy as a clam if Clinton were still prez.

Legislation comes up every now and again to overturn term limits, and it gets about as far as a snowball in hell. :shrug: