Should the 22nd Ammendment be repealed?

[Toots]

It would never make it in time to affect Bush* anyway so let's not even think about him. It does not matter who is President if they are doing a truly wonderful job and everyone is happy why should they not be allowed re-election. Remember it was the Republicans who got the Ammendment passed in the first place because of FDR. If he had been healthy he would have been re-elected forever. He was truly a man of the people. The Supreme Court ruled that term limits were unconstitutional for Congressmen because it denied the people their right to Representation of their choice. Why does the same thought process not follow on the presidency? I know the Republicans were really bummed out when FDR kept getting re-elected and I know the Democrats would be if the situation was reversed. I think it truly cheats the people of who they may really want to lead them.

[kansasblue]

1. Keep it.

It prevents abuse from the executive branch. In a country this big you can find another leader.

[shraby]

3. With the voting machines we have now,

keep the 22nd amendment, otherwise we'd never see another Democratic president.

[Booster]

12. I agree. With the voting machines we have now, we should

change it to ONE TERM per Republican, since we are obviously going to have a Republican president for as long as we have Diebold.

[wuushew]

14. How is that relevant?

Most candidates run as members of political parties. Diebold being controlled by the Republicans would continue to fraudulently put BFEE style candidates in office in perpetuity. It doesn't matter if their last name is Bush.

[tinrobot]

2. I think term limits are generally good.

As much as I would have loved a third Clinton term, I like the tradition of two term presidential term limits. I think it has generally served us well over the years.

[ibegurpard]

4. President is completely different from a congressperson or senator

Way more power and access to the "bully pulpit."
And it's constitutional because the constitution was amended to make it so. If they were to do that for senators and congressperson then that would also be constitutional.

[darkism]

5. Keep it and ban multiple family members from serving.

No more Hillary or Jeb BS. Enough Clintons and Bushes, give us some new blood.

EDIT: On second thought, 2 terms is about right. With only one term each, no one would have to worry about re-election and some of the psychos could really go nuts.

[DemGirl7]

6. I say keep it...

it prevents an abuse of power...we don't need anymore abuse of power, we already have a ton of it as we speak.

[NMMNG]

7. Keep it in place

We've already seen what massive abuses of power and fundraising can do. We don't need to allow that to occur on a broader scale :scared:

[bigwillq]

8. Keep it.

I think two terms is enough for a pres.

A lot is based on the Senate and Congress no matter who the pres. is. so I think two terms is enough.

[Capn Sunshine]

9. Three words: CLINTON FOR LIFE

If THAT doesn't shake some sense into those idiots, nothing will.
:evilgrin:

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! n/t

[wuushew]

11. Yes

the ability to spin the incumbent as being power hungry or monarchical is simply too easy. Did political corruption not exist before FDR? Washington's voluntary example has save for one President been upheld. Get rid of the natural born clause as well, any one who thinks Arnold would win forgets how loony the extreme right is in their primary season.

[Just Me]

13. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

PERIOD!!!!