Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should presidents be allowed to run for more than two terms? (Original Post) hrmjustin Sep 2012 OP
Simple answer??? Keefer Sep 2012 #1
I used to think so but just imagine doc03 Sep 2012 #2
he never would have run again, I think. You never know, but he would have lost. hrmjustin Sep 2012 #4
True but what if the economic collapse would have been 6 months later? n/t doc03 Sep 2012 #7
He still had awful approval ratings...even before the economic collapse. Drunken Irishman Sep 2012 #8
For Bush to win a third term HeiressofBickworth Sep 2012 #15
Nope. Drunken Irishman Sep 2012 #16
he was unpopular before than. I understand your point about shrub, however I still... hrmjustin Sep 2012 #12
W vs a third (or fourth) term for Clinton ? I'd risk it. nt eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #29
Perhaps, but Sekhmets Daughter Sep 2012 #28
Until 1951, when the 22nd Amendment was ratified, they could. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2012 #3
and a fourth. truman could have ran, but he said no. hrmjustin Sep 2012 #5
I don't know...I think a president should be given three terms, not two. Drunken Irishman Sep 2012 #6
We should have the right to elect anyone the hell we want. Term limits is a restriction of Freedom. Pyrzqxgl Sep 2012 #9
I agree muktiman Sep 2012 #24
I don't think they should get more than one. MrSlayer Sep 2012 #10
Like Mexico. That is an Idea. hrmjustin Sep 2012 #14
After Obama wins his second term ToxMarz Sep 2012 #11
good point but they would have to get a constitutional amendment to dot this so they need... hrmjustin Sep 2012 #13
That happens every time we have an 8 year president. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #23
Get rid of term limits creeksneakers2 Sep 2012 #17
agreed my friend. hrmjustin Sep 2012 #19
That's one good reason to end term limits Kolesar Sep 2012 #31
No.........it took a Constitutional amendment to limit the terms of the President.... Swede Atlanta Sep 2012 #18
I would say 6 terms per congressman or 2-3 terms per senator. hrmjustin Sep 2012 #20
If the FF had wanted term limits, they very easily could have written them in. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #22
The FF believed that people had a duty to serve in government and thus enrich their fellow citizen's Vincardog Sep 2012 #25
And they were human beings who created a remarkably durable and flexible framework for self-govt Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #32
No it should be one six year term gopiscrap Sep 2012 #21
Only if they're as good as FDR , No one produced more orpupilofnature57 Sep 2012 #26
No ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #27
Several Presidents tried for a third term. Only FDR succeeded. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #30
Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team) TheNaimSadik Oct 2012 #33
I don't know, but I'm kicking this thread so I can learn more from more replies. mykpart Oct 2012 #34
 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
8. He still had awful approval ratings...even before the economic collapse.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:26 PM
Sep 2012

For Bush to win a third term, you'd have to go back and fix Iraq in 2005. That's really what killed his approval ratings, since Iraq turned into a gigantic clusterfuck shortly after he started his second term. It's a big reason the Dems took control of the House & Senate in the numbers they did in 2006 ... so, I don't think there is any possibility of Bush winning a third term.

IMO, I think Bush would've opted to not run again. Kind of like LBJ in '68.

HeiressofBickworth

(2,682 posts)
15. For Bush to win a third term
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:48 PM
Sep 2012

the Republicans would merely have to cheat again. They did it twice and got away with it so a third time would be a piece of cake.

I think limiting to two terms is a good idea, no matter who the President is.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
12. he was unpopular before than. I understand your point about shrub, however I still...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:31 PM
Sep 2012

... think he never would have run again. he would have had to start running in 2007. Their might have been a primary, and he was very unpopular.

Sekhmets Daughter

(7,515 posts)
28. Perhaps, but
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:50 AM
Sep 2012

Without term limits Bill Clinton would have won in 2000 and 2004...In fact without term limits he might still be president

The Velveteen Ocelot

(116,663 posts)
3. Until 1951, when the 22nd Amendment was ratified, they could.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:14 PM
Sep 2012

But FDR was the only president ever actually elected to a third term.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
6. I don't know...I think a president should be given three terms, not two.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:23 PM
Sep 2012

Generally, the second term amounts to little for any president because we already know he's done no matter what. I have hope Obama will be able to do more in his second term, but it's rare a president gets near the level of his agenda through as he did in his first.

So, giving a President three terms allows for the potential to have a second term defined by policy and not lameduck status, which almost always happens the second after his inauguration.

Yes, I get some people fear the possibility of Bush getting a third term, but that wasn't going to happen. Had Bush run for a third term, which I even doubt he would have, Obama would've kicked his ass worse than he kicked McCain's.

Give a president three potential terms to shape the country.


 

MrSlayer

(22,143 posts)
10. I don't think they should get more than one.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:31 PM
Sep 2012

A single six or seven year term would be better. Do what you want to do without having to worry about re-election. No wasting time campaigning when you should be governing.

ToxMarz

(2,175 posts)
11. After Obama wins his second term
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:31 PM
Sep 2012

It would be an awesome rumor to start over at the Freepers, that Democrats intend to change the law so he can serve a third term. Those whose heads haven't yet exploded, will. Fox will probably do it anyway to keep them riled up.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
13. good point but they would have to get a constitutional amendment to dot this so they need...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:37 PM
Sep 2012

.... GOP support.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
23. That happens every time we have an 8 year president.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:57 PM
Sep 2012

I remember people saying Reagan was going to try. Then the right was afraid Clinton would try. Then the tinfoil people here were SURE SURE POSITIVE SERIES that was what Bush was going to do, after suspending the constitution and putting everyone into FEMA camps.

And so it goes.

creeksneakers2

(7,498 posts)
17. Get rid of term limits
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:44 PM
Sep 2012

Presidents always leave all the big problems to the next guy. If a president was going to be around for 20 years, he'd be more responsible about what he's creating and leaving.

 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
18. No.........it took a Constitutional amendment to limit the terms of the President....
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:45 PM
Sep 2012

I would like to see similar term limits for Congress and the Senate....

I would propose no more than 3 terms for a Congressman or 6 years and no more than 2 terms for a Senator or 12 years.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a system of citizen representatives, not monied career politicians. But term limits will have limited effect if we have unlimited corporate money in elections. We would still need an amendment that would significant change the ways elections are funded and reduce the influence of 3rd party money in elections. I don't see that happening ever, ever, ever.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
20. I would say 6 terms per congressman or 2-3 terms per senator.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:49 PM
Sep 2012

let them get their pension. But as someone her said what about Ted Kennedy. We never would have The great ted with term limits

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
22. If the FF had wanted term limits, they very easily could have written them in.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:54 PM
Sep 2012

Too often, "term limits" are the excuse used by the people who constantly lose since their ideas are out of sync with most of America (see the religious right) as their desperate attempt to shoehorn their person in.

Term limits are legitimate in the case of the POTUS because the chief executive has a tremendous amount of power unique only to that office. It is dangerous to allow anyone to sit in that chair for too long.

But it's a special case. I do not think term limits are appropriate for Congress.

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
25. The FF believed that people had a duty to serve in government and thus enrich their fellow citizen's
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:38 AM
Sep 2012

lives. Serving in government was a hardship and came at the expense of not managing your own affairs.
They did not envision a professional class of politicians nor did they envision anyone wanting such a profession.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
32. And they were human beings who created a remarkably durable and flexible framework for self-govt
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 04:30 PM
Sep 2012

but this idea of playing the endless game of "what would they have wanted", or "they would have wanted this" is silly. Would they have driven SUVs? Hybrids? Drank Diet coke? Would they have enjoyed violent XBOX games? HBO?

It's meaningless. At the end of the day, they're dead dudes from over 200 years ago. Really more relevant to us today, is to ask ourselves, now, what can we do and what should we do in a constitutional framework.

Personally, I am opposed to congressional term limits; I think that, like many jobs, people often require time and experience to get good- and point blank kicking all Senators and Reps out after one or two terms guarantees a perpetual crop of people 'learning the ropes'. There is something to be said for experience in Washington; love him or hate him (and there are ample reasons for both) Lyndon Baines Johnson was quite possibly the most effective politician of the 20th century; he honed that ability by spending a great deal of time in DC. We have long-time members of congress, like Barney Frank, who still do good work and have established themselves and their positions over time.

We have remedies for bad legislators, i.e. elections. That is how voters can remove people who have outstayed their usefulness in DC.

gopiscrap

(23,821 posts)
21. No it should be one six year term
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:52 PM
Sep 2012

and at the four year mark vote approve (if approve then continues for the next two years) or dissapprove and if disapprove hold an election 90 days later for a new president and then the six year clock starts ticking again.

eppur_se_muova

(36,402 posts)
30. Several Presidents tried for a third term. Only FDR succeeded.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:46 AM
Sep 2012

And that was largely because the country didn't want to change leaders in the middle of a war, which was a good decision.

Voters don't need to be "protected" from their decisions. They have chosen well enough without the 22nd Amendment. The only President who could have been elected to a third term since was Clinton -- and wouldn't that have been BETTER than W? Even if Clinton had lost, he could have run again in 2004 -- how do you think THAT would have turned out? Think how different our recent history would have been without the 22nd Amendment -- maybe no 9/11, certainly no Iraq War, maybe warning signs on Wall Street would have registered in time. No, I don't think Presidential term limits have done us any good at all, and quite a bit of harm.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Election Reform»Should presidents be allo...