• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Repealing the 22nd Amendment, Removing Presidential Term Limits.

Well, if you don't introduce it, you guarantee it never makes it to a vote. This way, you can always say you tried, even though it'll languish in legislative limbo like the more than ten thousand bills that had no action taken on them in the last Congress. No joke. Ten thousand-plus.
 
Well, I personally think term limits are important...

Could you imagine another Watergate in which a President unlawfully spies on political opponents (modern day it can be done more efficiently with much lower odds of getting caught), or another Diebold scandal in which electoral fraud was carried out?

It would mean that he/she could stay in power until they get old and die.
 
INRM said:
Well, I personally think term limits are important...

Could you imagine another Watergate in which a President unlawfully spies on political opponents (modern day it can be done more efficiently with much lower odds of getting caught), or another Diebold scandal in which electoral fraud was carried out?
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble understanding the relationship between term limits and the scandals you mention. Both occurred decades after the ratification of the 22nd amendment, and with or without the amendment we still have elections every four years and the ability to impeach.

It would mean that he/she could stay in power until they get old and die.
Click to expand...

As so long as the American people endowed him/her with that power, what exactly is the problem? Is the American electorate not intelligent enough to refrain from re-electing a scandalous incumbent?
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Introduced to the Congress January 6th, referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on February 9th.

So waddaya think? Presidential term limits good? bad? no longer needed?

Any idea what prompted Rep. José Serrano of NY to introduce this resolution?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5
Click to expand...

Serrano is heading in the wrong direction. The country does not need unlimited terms for a president, it needs one six-year term.

FDR was deathly ill when he ran for his fourth term. This was kept a secret from the public. America no longer produces statesmen who seek the office of President. The idea that American might be bamboozled into electing a President for more than a 2nd term is too frightening to contemplate.
 
I like the current system just fine. 8 years is enough time to get something done but not enough time to pack the supreme court, as just one example of the kind of excesses unlimited terms might lead to.

I'd be thrilled to limit senators to 2-3 terms and congressmen to maybe 10 terms, 20 years.
 
gdnp said:
I like the current system just fine. 8 years is enough time to get something done but not enough time to pack the supreme court, as just one example of the kind of excesses unlimited terms might lead to.

I'd be thrilled to limit senators to 2-3 terms and congressmen to maybe 10 terms, 20 years.
Click to expand...
I vote for your idea.
 
a whole lot of people have introduced bills trying to repeal the amendment over the last few years. i never understand whether or not they are serious or if they're trying to make a statement.
 
gdnp said:
I like the current system just fine. 8 years is enough time to get something done but not enough time to pack the supreme court, as just one example of the kind of excesses unlimited terms might lead to.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, and so far the main reason why I think the amendment should stay.

A little curious about your reasoning for this:

I'd be thrilled to limit senators to 2-3 terms and congressmen to maybe 10 terms, 20 years.
Click to expand...
 
Possibly the single most idiotic idea since vegetative force.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Excellent point, and so far the main reason why I think the amendment should stay.

A little curious about your reasoning for this:
Click to expand...

I'd like to see term limits on senators and representatives because I'm tired of unlimited pork flowing to West Virginia just because they have a senator who is older than dirt who has been in office since the Polk administration. It's one thing to keep people around long enough to develop an institutional memory. It's quite another to make career politicians who lose touch with their constituents.

By and large the only competitive house and senate races are those where there is no incumbent. I don't know what the results were for the last election, but in recent years 98 or 99% of those running for reelection get reelected, sometimes with no opposition.

Which would also be fine if the consensus opinion was that Congress is doing a bang-up job. Unfortunately, their approval rating is usually below 30%. So we have this logical disconnect where everyone seems to think their representatives are just great, but overall the institution sucks. The only way I sen out of this is term limints: forcing the other gugs ti be representid by someone else.
 
gdnp said:
I like the current system just fine. 8 years is enough time to get something done but not enough time to pack the supreme court, as just one example of the kind of excesses unlimited terms might lead to.

I'd be thrilled to limit senators to 2-3 terms and congressmen to maybe 10 terms, 20 years.
Click to expand...

Eight years? FDR managed to come up with a scheme to pack the supreme court after only 4 1/2 years. He just thought nobody would care that he would arbitrarily increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to possibly 15.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
As so long as the American people endowed him/her with that power, what exactly is the problem? Is the American electorate not intelligent enough to refrain from re-electing a scandalous incumbent?
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to Chicago?
 
gdnp said:
I'd like to see term limits on senators and representatives because I'm tired of unlimited pork flowing to West Virginia just because they have a senator who is older than dirt who has been in office since the Polk administration. It's one thing to keep people around long enough to develop an institutional memory. It's quite another to make career politicians who lose touch with their constituents.

By and large the only competitive house and senate races are those where there is no incumbent. I don't know what the results were for the last election, but in recent years 98 or 99% of those running for reelection get reelected, sometimes with no opposition.

Which would also be fine if the consensus opinion was that Congress is doing a bang-up job. Unfortunately, their approval rating is usually below 30%. So we have this logical disconnect where everyone seems to think their representatives are just great, but overall the institution sucks. The only way I sen out of this is term limints: forcing the other gugs ti be representid by someone else.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I better understand now.

tomwaits said:
Have you ever been to Chicago?
Click to expand...

Doh! I didn't even think about Illinois, let alone Chicago. I concede.
 
xixxvmcm85,

The connection is if there was no limit on number of terms and such scandals happened a president could theoretically stay in power until the day he dies.
 
I'd file this one under, "if it's not broken, don't fix it". A maximum of ten years is enough, why change it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom