Was it a good Idea to introduce the 22nd Ammendment? Whats wrong with the idea of a President whos doing the job well, is loved and respected by the people, being elected for more than two terms? After all he is being elected by the majority so why shouldnt the majority have a choice in who runs the nation after 8 years, as the original constitution called for? Wouldnt that make the opposing party work harder? Agree or disagree?

*http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/limbaugh_obama_third_term/2009/07/01/230937.html?s=al&promo_code=8294-1*

No I think there needs to be term limits on every office.

Once you've been in DC too long it all becomes about personal power and not the public good.

yeah, I agree. Term limits is a good thing.

In a nation of 300 million people, there's got to be more than one person who knows what they're doing.

In our entire history we've only had 44 presidents. That has got to be the most exclusive club on the planet. Power is already too concentrated in our country.

I support an ammendment to the constitution limiting members of the Senate to two terms and the House to four terms. No more career politicians.

As for the current President, at this point wether or nt he serves a second term is debateable. He may not be re-elected. The last time this subject came up as serious discussion was late in Ronald Reagan's second term. Way too early to be contemplating a third term for Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by foxred03:
In our entire history we've only had 44 presidents. That has got to be the most exclusive club on the planet. Power is already too concentrated in our country.

Actually, we have only had 43 ... Grover Cleveland was both 22 and 24.

shuman14
Posted Wed 01 July 2009 01:06 PM
No I think there needs to be term limits on every office.

Once you've been in DC too long it all becomes about personal power and not the public good.



While thats true,Its the majority of the people who would be reelecting him. Isnt that the whole concept of our system?

And it dont make him immune to losing an election every four years if he changes.

Then there is always the peoples tool granted by the founders as a safe guard to keep him in line if he changes mid term. Impeachment. Although rarely used is still available and a powerful tool.

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
shuman14
Posted Wed 01 July 2009 01:06 PM
No I think there needs to be term limits on every office.

Once you've been in DC too long it all becomes about personal power and not the public good.



While thats true,Its the majority of the people who would be reelecting him. Isnt that the whole concept of our system?

And it dont make him immune to losing an election every four years if he changes.

Then there is always the peoples tool granted by the founders as a safe guard to keep him in line if he changes mid term. Impeachment. Although rarely used is still available and a powerful tool.

There is a good reason for the 22nd . FDR is a great example. He became TOO powerful.
No it should not be taken away. If anything, we shold be adding term limits for congress.
Our founding Fathers never meant for Politicians to be a career move.

hopefully it will never go forward
see "http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj5/show"

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
current 111st session of congress OpenCongress Summary:
H.J.Res. 5 is a Constitutional amendment to remove the limit on the number of terms one may serve as President. It effectively would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which was approved by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951. Over the past six congressional sessions, several members of Congress have introduced similar legislation, including Sen. Harry Reid in 1989 ( S.J.Res. 36). As is likely the case in the 111th Congress, the resolutions have never proceeded out of committee. Furthermore, given its past history, it is not likely that such resolutions have been or are currently tied to any specific presidential session.

Well good luck with repealling it, two thirds of the Congress and two thirds of the States will have to vote for it.

The only time you get that type of support is when they vote themselves a raise.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shuman14:
Well good luck with repealling it, two thirds of the Congress and two thirds of the States will have to vote for it.

The only time you get that type of support is when they vote themselves a raise. [/QUOTE]

You got that right!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Frank_A_Valdez:
yeah, I agree. Term limits is a good thing.

In a nation of 300 million people, there's got to be more than one person who knows what they're doing.

Of course there is except there not part of the good old boys club. And not rich enough.

Political campaigns are expensive and its not what they say its what they do while in office. So when you get a keeper why not keep him if he's doing the job?

I can give you 535 reasons why term limits are a very good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by Frank_A_Valdez:
yeah, I agree. Term limits is a good thing.

In a nation of 300 million people, there's got to be more than one person who knows what they're doing.

Of course there is except there not part of the good old boys club. And not rich enough.

Political campaigns are expensive and its not what they say its what they do while in office. So when you get a keeper why not keep him if he's doing the job?

Wouldn't that be called a dictatorship?

John, it's already been proven that even those that mean well can become to powerful and you know what they say about absolute power. Hell you have posted it a few times yourself.

I oppose term limits from President to dog catcher.

Term limits is supposed to treat the disease of an incumbants advantage. But the REAL problem is the lack of involment of the citizens. They can't be bothered to do their own research.

If they can't be bothered to do research on people they're familiar with, what makes anyone think their going to do research on people their NOT familiar with?

So, in essence, this amounts to throwing out the baby with the bath water. From now on their will be able to vote for people chosen for them by the various party bosses.

The problem is not that we have incumbants, but at this moment in our history, citizens are not doing THEIR job, and blame the politicians.

When this historical moment passes, we are going to be stuck with this non democratic movement.

Dave

chris matthews would die of an erection that wouldnt stop because his man BO would continue.

GRAYMAN

Well, maybe the reason the electorate becomes apathetic is because they know the same old jokesters are gonna get elected, regardless of who they vote for.
If say Sen. Stevens or Sen. Kennedy is gonna get the job anyway then why should I even bother showing up at my polling station? I've got to take my kid to soccer practice or go to the grocery store.

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
shuman14
Posted Wed 01 July 2009 01:06 PM
No I think there needs to be term limits on every office.

Once you've been in DC too long it all becomes about personal power and not the public good.



While thats true,Its the majority of the people who would be reelecting him. Isnt that the whole concept of our system?

And it dont make him immune to losing an election every four years if he changes.

Then there is always the peoples tool granted by the founders as a safe guard to keep him in line if he changes mid term. Impeachment. Although rarely used is still available and a powerful tool.

There is a good reason for the 22nd . FDR is a great example. He became TOO powerful.
No it should not be taken away. If anything, we shold be adding term limits for congress.
Our founding Fathers never meant for Politicians to be a career move.

Powerful yes along with trusted and respected. Had he lived he would have continued to be
re elected by a nation who loved trusted,and respected him. His elections were never marginal they were decisive and I cant see whats wrong with that. I always believed thats what democracy and we the people stood for. Choice, and not political shenanigans. The person in office is producing and leading by example while the would be is only promising and we all know how that works.

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by Frank_A_Valdez:
yeah, I agree. Term limits is a good thing.

In a nation of 300 million people, there's got to be more than one person who knows what they're doing.

Of course there is except there not part of the good old boys club. And not rich enough.

Political campaigns are expensive and its not what they say its what they do while in office. So when you get a keeper why not keep him if he's doing the job?

Wouldn't that be called a dictatorship?

John, it's already been proven that even those that mean well can become to powerful and you know what they say about absolute power. Hell you have posted it a few times yourself.

No a dictator is not elected by the vast majority of the people. And Yes I have said that many times But If we follow the constitution as written and use the peoples tools that cant happen. Its all about solidarity
and a united people being a strong people.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank_A_Valdez:
Well, maybe the reason the electorate becomes apathetic is because they know the same old jokesters are gonna get elected, regardless of who they vote for.
If say Sen. Stevens or Sen. Kennedy is gonna get the job anyway then why should I even bother showing up at my polling station? I've got to take my kid to soccer practice or go to the grocery store.

There is a much higher turnover of office in the Federal government, than all local governments, especially those with term limits.

Those who oppose a Kennedy or a Stevens at least have a "Chance" of knowing what these men stand for.

Twenty, thirty years down the road (hopefully much sooner) when events FINALLY force the people to realise that citizenship does NOT mean abdication of thought, we will find ourselves having to fight to get term limits repealed.

Dave