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.

You are right the Presidency, the Senate and to some extent the House were designed to be restricted to rich land holders who had the time and money to serve as a hobby. The President and the Senators were also to be elected by other land holders not by the people.

quote:

No a dictator is not elected by the vast majority of the people.

Really?

Hitler was elected.

Mussolini was elected.

Dollfuss (Austria) was elected.

Horthy (Hungary) was elected.

Chavez was elected.

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:

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.

I knew someone was going to do that. Doesn't everyone refer to Bush 41 and 43?

I would support the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

Historically, the 22nd Amendment resulted from Republican frustration over the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR was reelected three times and died early in his fourth term.

The 22nd Amendment makes a president's second term, if he is reelected, a "lame duck" term. The result is that the president, whatever his or her party, loses influence during the latter part of the second term and that is not desirable, neither for the president or the people.

Additionally, FDR was the president during WW II. The public, no matter what they think of the president, do not like "to change horses in midstream". It is not a scenario likely to be repeated.

quote:

Originally posted by shuman14:

quote:

No a dictator is not elected by the vast majority of the people.

Really?

Hitler was elected.

Mussolini was elected.

Dollfuss (Austria) was elected.

Horthy (Hungary) was elected.

Chavez was elected.

Could they have been removed other than by an armed revolt? Were they Democracies bound by a constitution?

Yes, because it is undemocratic.

Our form of government is not a spectator sport. If you don't like the person in office, then vote them out, don't cry in your beer and wait for them to be term-limited out.

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

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.

You are right the Presidency, the Senate and to some extent the House were designed to be restricted to rich land holders who had the time and money to serve as a hobby. The President and the Senators were also to be elected by other land holders not by the people.

Partly correct. The Senate were elected by the people. The Senate would then elect a president.

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.

The electoral college is outdated and a far greater joke than the Federal reserve. Thats even worse than term limits. Imagine someone having the authority to toss my vote to someone I didnt vote for. State borders have to be dropped on election day, one person one vote and the majority of the votes represent we the people.

quote:

Originally posted by shuman14:

quote:

No a dictator is not elected by the vast majority of the people.

Really?

Hitler was elected.

Mussolini was elected.

Dollfuss (Austria) was elected.

Horthy (Hungary) was elected.

Chavez was elected.

Don't forget to add that they all got 99.5 percent of the vote...

Except for Chavez. For some reason everyone who monitored their election called them fair and free. But then again, Chavez is no "dictator."

Dave

Let me give you something to think about john..

How would you feel if Bush Jr was still in office?

Shoot, the lefties could not even handle the fact the majority voted him in two terms and we see that impeechment you talk about as a safe net is not a good thing, it gets abused too much like with Clinton and Bush.

You just want it right now because you like your guy which is fine.

But a career politician is bad bad bad.

And just because you are not in an office does not mean you can't go on to do great things for the people, right?

quote:

Originally posted by usa_girl:
Let me give you something to think about john..

How would you feel if Bush Jr was still in office?

Shoot, the lefties could not even handle the fact the majority voted him in two terms and we see that impeechment you talk about as a safe net is not a good thing, it gets abused too much like with Clinton and Bush.

You just want it right now because you like your guy which is fine.

But a career politician is bad bad bad.

And just because you are not in an office does not mean you can't go on to do great things for the people, right?

When the 22nd Amendment was passed, there was an exception for the sitting President. In other words Trumen could run again.

If the 22nd is repealed, there should be an exception, so that whomever is the sitting president should NOT be allowed to run again.

This should remove the taint of what the Founders called, "Interest."



Dave

quote:

Originally posted by usa_girl:
Let me give you something to think about john..

How would you feel if Bush Jr was still in office?

Shoot, the lefties could not even handle the fact the majority voted him in two terms and we see that impeechment you talk about as a safe net is not a good thing, it gets abused too much like with Clinton and Bush.

You just want it right now because you like your guy which is fine.

But a career politician is bad bad bad.

And just because you are not in an office does not mean you can't go on to do great things for the people, right?

you just hit it on the head.

This was brought up with bush in office and they were saying just the opposite then. Amazing how an election can change someones principles. LOL

heheh, talk about counting your chicks before they are hatched...let's get him in office a second term before you start worrying about a third.

"After serving two 4 year terms as President of the United States, George Washington gave up his elected seat and retired to quiet life in Mount Vernon. He very easily could have stayed in the White House as the Commander-in-Chief of the fledgling nation, but he knew that doing so would be counterproductive to the free nation that they had just fought for and won. To me this is the greatest legacy that George Washington left behind, as he could have very easily been the first king or emperor of the U.S. However he opted out of the office, such as Cinncinnatus did, and retired to quiet life. After Washington set the precedent of a two term limit on the presidency, no president broke that precedent until Franklin D. Roosevelt. After Roosevelt’s death, the 22nd Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution that set the traditional 2 term limit to the President’s seat."

Personally I think...allow him...who has rendered the same level of dedication to this Country...as Washington...ask We the People for the right to serve beyond two terms...

We would surely allow it...but He would, just as surely, deny it...

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
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*

This isnt Uganda, or Haiti where one could be President for Life. Most of those who serve for so long are tyrants

Idi Amin
Papa Doc Duvalier
Baby Doc Duvalier
Bokassa
Tito(not Tito Jackson)
Sukarno
Kim Il Sung
Kim Jong Il
Mobutu
FDR

All tried to hold power forever

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
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*

This isnt Uganda, or Haiti where one could be President for Life. Most of those who serve for so long are tyrants

Idi Amin
Papa Doc Duvalier
Baby Doc Duvalier
Bokassa
Tito(not Tito Jackson)
Sukarno
Kim Il Sung
Kim Jong Il
Mobutu
FDR

All tried to hold power forever

How nice and patriotic of you to compare Idi Amin with FDR and Kim Il Sung.

No doubt we all remember that millions of people that FDR murdered, the Republican Party members rounded up and shot. His closing down of the free press, and most of all his refusal to lose a free and fair election.

I'm truly touched by your objectivity...

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
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*

This isnt Uganda, or Haiti where one could be President for Life. Most of those who serve for so long are tyrants

Idi Amin
Papa Doc Duvalier
Baby Doc Duvalier
Bokassa
Tito(not Tito Jackson)
Sukarno
Kim Il Sung
Kim Jong Il
Mobutu
FDR

All tried to hold power forever

How nice and patriotic of you to compare Idi Amin with FDR and Kim Il Sung.

No doubt we all remember that millions of people that FDR murdered, the Republican Party members rounded up and shot. His closing down of the free press, and most of all his refusal to lose a free and fair election.

I'm truly touched by your objectivity...

Dave

Personally Dave...I can understand the Republican fears at the moment...although I'm not a Republican...

The MSM speaks of the demise of the Repub Party...OR defacto one party rule...

Our markets and economy are collapsing...as we all witness it...

Unemployment rises...and recovery bucks are not only slowly released...but not targeted to key economic sectors of our economy...

Re foreign policy...We seem to be tip-toeing thru the tulips...afraid to voice our principles...

Socialized Medicine is on the table.

Government controls major banks and manufacturing concerns ...formerly deemed inviolable...sancrsanct...such as GM...

NOW, there is the question of extending the relatively unproven Presidents term beyond two terms???

Why would anyone have concerns?

quote:

Originally posted by strobelvets:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
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*

This isnt Uganda, or Haiti where one could be President for Life. Most of those who serve for so long are tyrants

Idi Amin
Papa Doc Duvalier
Baby Doc Duvalier
Bokassa
Tito(not Tito Jackson)
Sukarno
Kim Il Sung
Kim Jong Il
Mobutu
FDR

All tried to hold power forever

How nice and patriotic of you to compare Idi Amin with FDR and Kim Il Sung.

No doubt we all remember that millions of people that FDR murdered, the Republican Party members rounded up and shot. His closing down of the free press, and most of all his refusal to lose a free and fair election.

I'm truly touched by your objectivity...

Dave

Personally Dave...I can understand the Republican fears at the moment...although I'm not a Republican...

The MSM speaks of the demise of the Repub Party...OR defacto one party rule...

Our markets and economy are collapsing...as we all witness it...

Unemployment rises...and recovery bucks are not only slowly released...but not targeted to key economic sectors of our economy...

Re foreign policy...We seem to be tip-toeing thru the tulips...afraid to voice our principles...

Socialized Medicine is on the table.

Government controls major banks and manufacturing concerns ...formerly deemed inviolable...sancrsanct...such as GM...

NOW, there is the question of extending the relatively unproven Presidents term beyond two terms???

Why would anyone have concerns?

The only way an "unproven President" could be extended beyond two terms is if WE THE PEOPLE extend him/her.

Why are some here so afraid of what the electorate will do? Sounds like you don't trust them and think that we need to be controlled by the 22A. Somewhat paternalistic POV, IMO.

Actually,

FDR attempted to Pack the Supreme Court with Justices when he didnt get his way from their Rulings during the New Deal(Which by the way was truley a Fascist idea)

FDR did make US Citizens who owned gold into criminals under Executive Order 6102

FDR engaged in secret talks with the french to violate the Numerous US Neutrality Acts as early as 1938

Used the USS Greer to Attack a German U-Boat before Pearl Harbor until same U-Boat finally Torpedoed USS Greer. This was September 4th, 1941. He told Churchill he intended to be more provocative to as Churchill relates in his memoirs "everything was to be done to provoke an incident."

FDR did suppress US reports by his Special Emissary George Earle about the Soviets Murder of Polish Officers at Katyn, going so far as to Exile Earle to Samoa for the duration after realizing it wouldnt do to admit we were allied with Someone who could cold bloodedly execute 22,436 fellow Allies.


FDR did send 120,000 Americans to Concentration Camps due to their race, not due to their Actions, aka Executive Order 9066

FDR did Strike Break, Arrested Union Leaders(Before and During WWII).

FDR did make a deal with Organized crime, aka Operation Underworld. Deals with Frank Costello, Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lansky

FDR did Initiate Wiretapping without Warrants(even having Eleanor Tapped).


So, yeah, I consider him a Tyrant what do you call a Man who sends 120,00 Fellow citizens to Concentration Camps because of their race?

A Hero?

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:

quote:

Originally posted by strobelvets:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by john2x:
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*

This isnt Uganda, or Haiti where one could be President for Life. Most of those who serve for so long are tyrants

Idi Amin
Papa Doc Duvalier
Baby Doc Duvalier
Bokassa
Tito(not Tito Jackson)
Sukarno
Kim Il Sung
Kim Jong Il
Mobutu
FDR

All tried to hold power forever

How nice and patriotic of you to compare Idi Amin with FDR and Kim Il Sung.

No doubt we all remember that millions of people that FDR murdered, the Republican Party members rounded up and shot. His closing down of the free press, and most of all his refusal to lose a free and fair election.

I'm truly touched by your objectivity...

Dave

Personally Dave...I can understand the Republican fears at the moment...although I'm not a Republican...

The MSM speaks of the demise of the Repub Party...OR defacto one party rule...

Our markets and economy are collapsing...as we all witness it...

Unemployment rises...and recovery bucks are not only slowly released...but not targeted to key economic sectors of our economy...

Re foreign policy...We seem to be tip-toeing thru the tulips...afraid to voice our principles...

Socialized Medicine is on the table.

Government controls major banks and manufacturing concerns ...formerly deemed inviolable...sancrsanct...such as GM...

NOW, there is the question of extending the relatively unproven Presidents term beyond two terms???

Why would anyone have concerns?

The only way an "unproven President" could be extended beyond two terms is if WE THE PEOPLE extend him/her.

Why are some here so afraid of what the electorate will do? Sounds like you don't trust them and think that we need to be controlled by the 22A. Somewhat paternalistic POV, IMO.[/QUOT

Personally I think...many have seen the POWER of one party "ADVOCATES GONE MAD" subtitled "ONE TICKET UNNOPPOSED"...it happens in this world...

Hitler and Mussolini seem proof enough...

If a President adds value for eight years...honor him...and allow other Parties to speak...

I doubt the awesome power of an aligned Congress and Presidency was foreseen by the Founding Fathers...while the MSM bombarded the main opposition with questions of its ultimate survival...

For this leads only to...one party rule...

If We the People repeal the 22nd...let us also authorize the crown and Sceptre of the New King of America...and realize that tenure and commensurate power...corrupt...