Bill Clinton would like constitution amended

[Genghis Pwn]

It would be an exciting campaign, that's for sure.

 

[renata]

It would be an exciting campaign, that's for sure.

If Bush agrees to debate, it sure would!

 

[Jedi Knight]

Term limits should be in the Constitution not the stae legislatures...

I think that the irony of it is the Republicans put the term limit on the Presidency to thwart another FDR, but then I think Eisenhower and regan could have rerun.

Term limits will be a bad idea as soon as the people who put them in place are sitting in comittee chairs that they want. It was a short sighted policy and always has been.

If some district wants to reelect the same schmo that is the way it is supposed to work.

I completely disagree for several reasons. The first is that no man is so important that he needs to be president for more than eight years. When you have leaders at that level of power for longer than two terms it can create consolidations of power that can be a threat to the entire system.

The second major reason is that a person's 'popularity' may be subverted at the risk of the nation-state. This happened with FDR. FDR had a stroke and was wheel-chair bound in his last election for president and most of the people (the voters) who voted for him didn't even know about it. They weren't even informed. That is why four-term presidential election cycles are so dangerous. The person running for more than two terms becomes an antiquated figure-head for one political party and may no longer be healthy physically and psychologically.

How many presidents were required to take psychological exams or display their medical records before running for election or reelection?

Presidential elections that go beyond two terms of four years each are fourth-world type grabs for power that function as the antithesis to the checks and balances system of our democracy. Remember, our presidential elections are specifically designed to prevent the majority from making an emotional decision regarding the selection of president.

When you look at American presidential history, when did most problems in the presidency occur? They occured at the tail-end of the second or last segment of the presidential cycle. In FDR's case it was at the end of his third term when he was not fit to hold a fourth term but was elected by a deceived public anyway.

What price did the US pay for it? The Russians got all of the east, a Cold War that cost us $30 Trillion, etc. If FDR's health was made public, there is a strong chance a psychologically and physically fit president would have been elected and the US would not have caved into the communists. That is why two terms are more than enough.

Anyone that wants a dictator can move to Cuba and shine Castro's shoes.

JK

 

[corplinx]

I completely disagree for several reasons. The first is that no man is so important that he needs to be president for more than eight years.

I agree fully with this statement. However, I believe it is up to the voters to show him the door after 8 years.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I agree fully with this statement. However, I believe it is up to the voters to show him the door after 8 years.

After eight years there may be no more elections. Ever.

JK

 

[Tez]

I agree fully with this statement. However, I believe it is up to the voters to show him the door after 8 years.

I fully support term limits. Why? Because I've lived in so called democracies, where the same person keeps getting "democratically" elected year after year, for 20 or 30 years.

Zimbabwe

Malawi

Obviously if one can be sure of an absolutely fair ballot box for the rest of eternity then term limits make no sense. However they function very powerfully in imperfect and fledgling democracies. The US falls somewhat into the former category, although I dont seriously think they are needed here. What I would say is that the US sets an example for all other democracies, and I believe term limits really are necessary in many of the countries that experience a sharp transition to a democracy. There is little harm in having them - it would be somewhat disingenious to suggest that there could only be one universally acclaimed suitable person for running the country, no matter what it was going through....

 

[Dancing David]

Nice post JK!

I agree to some extent, but I feel that the move to put term limits in place for the Conrgess and Senate should come from the US Constitution.

I agree that term limits on the Presidency are most likely a good way to prevent dictatorship.(That and the ritual slaying of the president if they aren't reelected)

So did FDR really give away eastern Europe and start the Cold War?

 

[corplinx]

Even as a fledgeling republic the country did not need term limits. George Washington created a tradition by serving only two terms. Not until FDR was it really an issue.

I do not like reactionary legislation. Usurping part of our choice about who can vote for is bad.

Can't Clinton be right once in a while?

 

[KelvinG]

I would much rather see Bill Clinton as president than George Bush.
Then again, I'd rather see a retarded chimpanzee as president than George Bush.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Even as a fledgeling republic the country did not need term limits. George Washington created a tradition by serving only two terms. Not until FDR was it really an issue.

I do not like reactionary legislation. Usurping part of our choice about who can vote for is bad.

Can't Clinton be right once in a while?

I applaud your post.

 

[Michael Redman]

I would be OK with a restriction on consecutive terms, to break up the momentum of incumbency, but I agree that the limit which keeps Clinton (or others in his position, obviously) from running for president again does not serve the cause of American democracy.

As has been said, however, there are plenty of very useful positions that someone like Clinton could hold and serve the public, without holding the presidency. For example, Supreme Court justice, cabinet member, Ambassador to an important ally or to the UN. It's not like he's prohibited from pubic service.

(Let's not make this into a debate on this particular person. The concept should be good or bad for any possible president. Policy aimed at one person is foolish.)

 

[jj]

I would be OK with a restriction on consecutive terms, to break up the momentum of incumbency,

Rhodes
Gilligan
Rhodes
Gilligan
Rhodes
Gilligan


Those of you who lived near Ohio will know what I'm on about here.

 

[Tez]

Even as a fledgeling republic the country did not need term limits. George Washington created a tradition by serving only two terms. Not until FDR was it really an issue.

I do not like reactionary legislation. Usurping part of our choice about who can vote for is bad.

Can't Clinton be right once in a while?

Sure - but it doesnt work that way for most countries in these times. Perhaps what worked 200 years ago might not work so well today? I dont know. It could be something as simple as the modern weaponary available to repressive governements.

One might say "Why should the US care what example it sets to other new democracies"? Why might "usurping part of your choice" (no matter how miniscule a part it really is) actually be beneficial to you as a country. All I can say is that IMO a more democratic world is ultimately in the US's best interests, although domestically such actions might not be necessary. My claim is that term limits provide strength to new democracies. Of the two countries I mentioned above, both had term limits when they initially switched to a democracy. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe terrorised the country and changed the constitution. By doing so it became clear what a thug he was - he couldnt sit any longer under the banner of having been fairly elected. In Malawi, Mulzi tried everything he could (also terrorizing the population/media) to change the law to get a third term. He failed. [Thankfully because Malawi had just come out of a 30 year dictatorship]

The "Why cant Clinton be right once in a while" is silly and presumptious. I've been a Clinton supporter on the vast majority of things he suggests and/or the things he did during his presidency. Your post suggests that you're the one with a knee jerk reaction. Debate the issues, and think for yourself.

 

[Kodiak]

We have term limits. You have the chance to limit someone's terms every time they come up for reelection.

IMO, the 22nd amendment is just another check and balance.

The founding fathers never intended political office to be a career, but instead wanted average civic minded citizens filling most government positions (a notable exception being the Supreme Court).

 

[corplinx]

Sure - but it doesnt work that way for most countries in these times. Perhaps what worked 200 years ago might not work so well today? I dont know. It could be something as simple as the modern weaponary available to repressive governements.

I didn't say it works for everybody.

 

[LCBOY]

AMENDMENT XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.


My question here is does this ammendent imply that a person cannot be elected to more than two consectutive terms? I would think someone might use that arguement. It reminds me of the debate of the reserve clause in the baseball contracts for major league baseball players. For decades the players had no power over their contracts. If the players and the owners disagreed over a salary then per the reserve clause the owners can sign the player for whatever salary for one year. Everyone assumed this meant the owners can do this year after year. But the players challenged this interpretation in the 1970s. They argued that one year meant one year and an arbitator agreed with the players. This created free agency for the players and now we have $25 million per year baseball players!

I'm not sure this comparison is valid, though. I think a President today would find it difficult to elected to more than two terms due to the contentious nature of modern politics. Also, only one man has ever served non-consectutive terms as President, Grover Cleveland Alexander.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Also, only one man has ever served non-consectutive terms as President, Grover Cleveland Alexander.

And look where he is today!

 

[Michael Redman]

Grover Cleveland Alexander was never president, but he was portrayed by one (Ronald Reagan) in the film, "The Winning Team".

Perhaps you meant President Grover Cleveland?

http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/gcleveland.html

 

[LCBOY]

Grover Cleveland Alexander was never president, but he was portrayed by one (Ronald Reagan) in the film, "The Winning Team".

Perhaps you meant President Grover Cleveland?

http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/gcleveland.html

Oops! You're right! I was getting my baseball players and Presidents confused. Grover Cleveland Alexander was a Hall of Fame pitcher in the early part of the 20th century. I forgot about Ronald Reagan movie.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Grover Cleveland Alexander was never president, but he was portrayed by one (Ronald Reagan) in the film, "The Winning Team".

Perhaps you meant President Grover Cleveland?

Whoops! Of course! Good, er, catch.