Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed?

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Reasonable term limits are an essential safeguard in a democratic society. They help prevent one person or party from gaining too much power via cult of personality. That leads to tyranny.

Arguable for the executive. Wrong for the legislature, who benefits more from the experience of its members than it loses, loses more to term limits' corrupting influence than it gains.

Actually, the larger thing people should worry about than term limits is the political party becoming too powerful, when it selects the nominess in districts that are mostly 'safe' and can demand more loyalty from the politician than the constituents, because it has more to do with his election than they did - and term limits ojnly greatly increase the power of the party over the voter, since there are many new faces selected by the party machine, and the lame-duck politicians don't need the votes for re-election.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I think politicians should be limited to 1 term in all positions.
People maybe wouldn't worry so damn much about re-election and instead they could focus on their jobs.

This would also have the side effect of making them completely unaccountable to the voters.

1 term, 6 years, with a 60% popular majority recall vote (providing accountability to the people).

Also, election day needs to be a national holiday.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I think politicians should be limited to 1 term in all positions.
People maybe wouldn't worry so damn much about re-election and instead they could focus on their jobs.

This would also have the side effect of making them completely unaccountable to the voters.

No less than any lame duck currently.

Right, but he said politicians in all positions. Congressmen are never lame ducks and presidents are accountable for their first 4 years. With this new system all politicians would be accountable for zero years.

Sorry ebaycj, but I don't agree with recall votes in any way. The purpose of term lengths is supposed to be that leaders are able to make unpopular decisions they believe to be necessary. Truman would have been recalled under your system and quite possibly Lincoln as well in the worst days of the civil war.

 

[sandorski]

If this were Honduras, somebody would end up in Mexico! 😉:laugh:[/off topic]

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes. It was not fair that George Bush couldn't run for a third term. It is absurd that an artificial stupidity the founding fathers did not suggest as law, should in our day prevent the talents of an exceptionally great President like him from being utilized for more than 8 years. Why in the hell should the will of the people be blocked this way. It should have been declared unconstitutional. How about you can only take a shit once a week. Just plain stupid.

"Oh oH, hold me back, Martha, I might vote for some guy who wants to be dictator.

It passed the amendment process which means this is what the people want. If the people want to revert back they can use the same process to repeal the 22nd.

Are you kidding. What person who hates himself would ever trust himself not to vote for a third term President. What you call the will of the people I call callow fear.

The people who informed their elected officials nearly 60 years ago to vote for the 22nd amendment. This isnt hard to understand. Dont like it now? Then present your position and sway the electorate to repeal it.

My personaly opinion is the legislature stripped the executive of power. Even if that power was only excercised sucessfully once in our entire history. They should had also put term limits on themselves.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I think politicians should be limited to 1 term in all positions.
People maybe wouldn't worry so damn much about re-election and instead they could focus on their jobs.

This would also have the side effect of making them completely unaccountable to the voters.

No less than any lame duck currently.

Right, but he said politicians in all positions. Congressmen are never lame ducks and presidents are accountable for their first 4 years. With this new system all politicians would be accountable for zero years.

Sorry ebaycj, but I don't agree with recall votes in any way. The purpose of term lengths is supposed to be that leaders are able to make unpopular decisions they believe to be necessary. Truman would have been recalled under your system and quite possibly Lincoln as well in the worst days of the civil war.

Yes, our congresspeople are so accountable right now without term limits. :roll:

Carry on, naive little boy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I think politicians should be limited to 1 term in all positions.
People maybe wouldn't worry so damn much about re-election and instead they could focus on their jobs.

This would also have the side effect of making them completely unaccountable to the voters.

No less than any lame duck currently.

Right, but he said politicians in all positions. Congressmen are never lame ducks and presidents are accountable for their first 4 years. With this new system all politicians would be accountable for zero years.

Sorry ebaycj, but I don't agree with recall votes in any way. The purpose of term lengths is supposed to be that leaders are able to make unpopular decisions they believe to be necessary. Truman would have been recalled under your system and quite possibly Lincoln as well in the worst days of the civil war.

Yes, our congresspeople are so accountable right now without term limits. :roll:

Carry on, naive little boy.

Talk about naive. Who is supposed to hold them accountable and who is to blame they are not?

That's right. The American voter should only be allowed to vote in 2 elections.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I think politicians should be limited to 1 term in all positions.
People maybe wouldn't worry so damn much about re-election and instead they could focus on their jobs.

This would also have the side effect of making them completely unaccountable to the voters.

No less than any lame duck currently.

Right, but he said politicians in all positions. Congressmen are never lame ducks and presidents are accountable for their first 4 years. With this new system all politicians would be accountable for zero years.

Sorry ebaycj, but I don't agree with recall votes in any way. The purpose of term lengths is supposed to be that leaders are able to make unpopular decisions they believe to be necessary. Truman would have been recalled under your system and quite possibly Lincoln as well in the worst days of the civil war.

Yes, our congresspeople are so accountable right now without term limits. :roll:

Carry on, naive little boy.

Regardless how how accountable you believe they are now, they would hardly be moreso without ever having to face the voters.

Your whole 'hurf blurf politics bad' thing is pretty old, and it's the refuge of people who want to act like they understand what is going on, but don't want to actually expend the time and energy to do it for real. You're nothing new.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Reasonable term limits are an essential safeguard in a democratic society. They help prevent one person or party from gaining too much power via cult of personality. That leads to tyranny.

Arguable for the executive. Wrong for the legislature, who benefits more from the experience of its members than it loses, loses more to term limits' corrupting influence than it gains.

Actually, the larger thing people should worry about than term limits is the political party becoming too powerful, when it selects the nominess in districts that are mostly 'safe' and can demand more loyalty from the politician than the constituents, because it has more to do with his election than they did - and term limits ojnly greatly increase the power of the party over the voter, since there are many new faces selected by the party machine, and the lame-duck politicians don't need the votes for re-election.

I agree, which is why I said 'reasonable' term limits. The legislature by its very construction (bicameral with a large number of reps) is less affected by term limits. However, I do not believe that somebody should be in the Senate more than about 2-3 decades. When you are re-elected that many times, you are not a representative, you are an institution. I digress though, legislative term limits are really deserving of their own thread...

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
No, and in addition, we need an amendment to limit the terms of senators and representatives.

Hells yeah.:thumbsup:

They all complain about how difficult their jobs are, and yet they'll do anything to ensure that they keep those jobs. Does not compute.

 

[dennilfloss]

In Canada we do quite well without term limits, Also, removing them would allow your president not to be a so-called lame duck for the last part of his/her second mandate. You'd probably get more things done.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Reasonable term limits are an essential safeguard in a democratic society. They help prevent one person or party from gaining too much power via cult of personality. That leads to tyranny.

Arguable for the executive. Wrong for the legislature, who benefits more from the experience of its members than it loses, loses more to term limits' corrupting influence than it gains.

Actually, the larger thing people should worry about than term limits is the political party becoming too powerful, when it selects the nominess in districts that are mostly 'safe' and can demand more loyalty from the politician than the constituents, because it has more to do with his election than they did - and term limits ojnly greatly increase the power of the party over the voter, since there are many new faces selected by the party machine, and the lame-duck politicians don't need the votes for re-election.

I agree, which is why I said 'reasonable' term limits. The legislature by its very construction (bicameral with a large number of reps) is less affected by term limits. However, I do not believe that somebody should be in the Senate more than about 2-3 decades. When you are re-elected that many times, you are not a representative, you are an institution. I digress though, legislative term limits are really deserving of their own thread...

Not to be glass half full about this, I think you disagree with my position against legislative term limits more than you agree by not wanting minimal limits.

If I saw the problem being that the long-term legislators were violating democracy and protected by corrupt power, I'd likely be in favor of limits. That's not what I see.

When I look at the best legislators, I see a correlation with those there the longest. Henry Waxman is now as or more productive than he's even been - which is saying a lot considering his time goes back to battles like fighitng the food industry to require the information on food packages we take for granted - and he's been there 38 years. Every analyst I've seen gives Ted Kennedy credit for being one of the most effective Senators in history. Even 'bad' long-term members seem to tend to represent their constituents.

Take out these leaders and in my view you cripple our democracy and the power of the people and open it up to being an even more corrupt system than it is now.

We appear to differ on whether 'institution' is usually a good or a bad word when it comes to our Congressional leaders.

Our national history is filled with 'great men' in Congress who helped shape the direction of policy, who tended to have long history serving to establish that standing.

My own Congressman, Pete Stark, has been in office since the 70's, when he left the bank he had founded to oppose the Vietnam war, and his experience is a strength.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
No, and in addition, we need an amendment to limit the terms of senators, judges, and representatives.

This (fixed).

Ya do know that federal judges are appointed for life and not elected, don't ya. It's suppose to remove political considerations from the judges. The only judges elected are local and some states. And an amendment wont touch those.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
No, and in addition, we need an amendment to limit the terms of senators, judges, and representatives.

This (fixed).

Ya do know that federal judges are appointed for life and not elected, don't ya. It's suppose to remove political considerations from the judges. The only judges elected are local and some states. And an amendment wont touch those.

Yes, I know that, but removing "for life," and replacing it with "for 16 years," is still a limit on their term. It doesn't matter one damn bit whether or not they are voted on vs. appointed to a position with term limits in place; and, thus far, the current process obviously hasn't "removed political considerations from the judges."

So yes, our Federal judges should have term limits as well.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
In Canada we do quite well without term limits, Also, removing them would allow your president not to be a so-called lame duck for the last part of his/her second mandate. You'd probably get more things done.

Canada :laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
In Canada we do quite well without term limits, Also, removing them would allow your president not to be a so-called lame duck for the last part of his/her second mandate. You'd probably get more things done.

Apparently Alaska doesn't need term limits either, at least for Governor.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
No, and in addition, we need an amendment to limit the terms of senators, judges, and representatives.

This (fixed).

Ya do know that federal judges are appointed for life and not elected, don't ya. It's suppose to remove political considerations from the judges. The only judges elected are local and some states. And an amendment wont touch those.

Yes, I know that, but removing "for life," and replacing it with "for 16 years," is still a limit on their term. It doesn't matter one damn bit whether or not they are voted on vs. appointed to a position with term limits in place; and, thus far, the current process obviously hasn't "removed political considerations from the judges."

So yes, our Federal judges should have term limits as well.

they already do, a life time term limit. and the don't have to campaign, raise money or any of that other bullshit politicians have to do.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
No, and in addition, we need an amendment to limit the terms of senators, judges, and representatives.

This (fixed).

Ya do know that federal judges are appointed for life and not elected, don't ya. It's suppose to remove political considerations from the judges. The only judges elected are local and some states. And an amendment wont touch those.

Yes, I know that, but removing "for life," and replacing it with "for 16 years," is still a limit on their term. It doesn't matter one damn bit whether or not they are voted on vs. appointed to a position with term limits in place; and, thus far, the current process obviously hasn't "removed political considerations from the judges."

So yes, our Federal judges should have term limits as well.

they already do, a life time term limit. and the don't have to campaign, raise money or any of that other bullshit politicians have to do.

Like it's a good idea to create a job market for former federal judges, the way we have one for former military officials and Executive and Congressional officials and staffers.

Hey, Judge, you're thinking of running for the Senate after your term is up in a year, and you know the politics on that issue... and there *might* be an opening in our firm.

For a judge who shows the right approach to the law.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Never mind the fact that GWB could not run and win as dogcatcher in any third term after he so screwed it up, but no, cults of personality always jump the shark, and I would vote nyet to any repeal of the 22'nd amendment.

I would have voted for him again.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Never mind the fact that GWB could not run and win as dogcatcher in any third term after he so screwed it up, but no, cults of personality always jump the shark, and I would vote nyet to any repeal of the 22'nd amendment.

I would have voted for him again.

If there were more people like you, I might be motivated to reject democracy.

Thankfully, whether Darwin, public education or liberal laws limiting lead and mervury in baby food, there are not.

And so I can still prefer democracy for all its imperfections.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
In Canada we do quite well without term limits, Also, removing them would allow your president not to be a so-called lame duck for the last part of his/her second mandate. You'd probably get more things done.

Apparently Alaska doesn't need term limits either, at least for Governor.

They need Mandatory Term Completion.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
In Canada we do quite well without term limits, Also, removing them would allow your president not to be a so-called lame duck for the last part of his/her second mandate. You'd probably get more things done.

Apparently Alaska doesn't need term limits either, at least for Governor.

They need Mandatory Term Completion.

Actually, I think the lack of it worked pretty well for them.

 

[sandorski]

I think Term Limits only seems to be a solution, but not the solution for the real underlying problem. The problem seems to be an Electorate that either isn't aware what their Politicians are doing or doesn't care what their politicians are doing. Running a Government takes a certain amount of Talent and Knowledge, by forcing a Turnover constantly you end up throwing out the Good with the Bad and give the Electorate no option to keep effective Politicians. With such an Electorate you'll still end up with crappy Politicians, except they'll always have a certain amount of Ineptitude because they'll always be trying to figure out how to get things done.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Term Limits do not solve anything. Any sitting President spends how much of his last year campaigning for re-election? Same for Congress, and ALL the way down to local levels. I would MUCH prefer a single term in any office so that they do the JOB without worrying about losing certain voters for re-election.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Term Limits do not solve anything. Any sitting President spends how much of his last year campaigning for re-election? Same for Congress, and ALL the way down to local levels. I would MUCH prefer a single term in any office so that they do the JOB without worrying about losing certain voters for re-election.

Yes, let's free them of any accountability for their campaign positions, and from any need to please the voters, so they're completely free to ignore the voters and help themselves.