Could this happen, or should it happen?

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

could it be possible to overturn the 22 amendment and allow Obama a third term?
Does anyone think it will happen?
SHOULD it happen?

Possible? YES
Will it happen? Maybe
Should it happen? First things first!
Obama is going to have a tough time finishing his 1st term

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

But, could it be possible to overturn the 22 amendment and allow Obama a third term?
Does anyone think it will happen?
SHOULD it happen?

anything is possible in this world. but i don't think it will happen.

i wouldn't be in favor of repealing the 22nd for purely political reasons. i'd be okay with a Temporary Suspension term to to term in the event of a global upheaval such as world war II, with circumstances warranting.

but generally? not a good idea.

0 Replies

I would prefer to see an amendment that restricts back to back terms.

This way whoever get's elected works 100% at the job he/she was elected to do
and not one bit at getting re-elected. That would be change you can believe in.

Make this change retroactive for the president, senators and members of the
house. You should also make the same term restrictions on the state level.

0 Replies

Why should a good President be limited to two terms if he/she's good and on a roll? The people will decide if they should stay or go every four years. I think it's downright short-sighted to limit them to two terms.

1 Reply

@Mame,

The president (good or bad) should be limited to just one term and a total of two terms, but not back to back.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

The people will kick them out. Cases in point:

In 1993, Canada kicked out the Conservative governing party - they'd had 151 seats prior, but in this election, they wound up with only 2.

This was repeated in the BC provincial election in 1996, with the NDP winning only 2 seats out of 79. Previously, they'd had 39.

If someone's doing a good job, you don't fire them, you reward them. This is part of the problem with elected officials today - they are so eager to win the next election that they don't bother with long-term plans - a very short-sighted position. Nobody is focussing on planning, just "What will get me elected?" instead of what is good for the country.

1 Reply

@Mame,

The current set-up has the president running for re-election most of his first term.
This is not doing the business the people hired him to do!

Make it totally unnecessary to even think about getting re-elected and maybe the
president will do the job the citizens elected him to do.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

That doesnt make it any less apparent that it has been tried in the past, and it is being tried now.

Since Lamebaugh didn't bring this up during the Bush presidency, my guess is that he's poking hot buttons.

As far as your questions in the thread title...we've all pretty much agreed

Quote:

Could this happen

Fat chance

Quote:

should it happen?

No

0 Replies

Term limits are the equivalent of the people crying "stop us before we vote again!" We already have term limits built into the political system: they're called "elections." There's no reason to limit the president to two terms. If he's doing a good job at the end of his second term, why shouldn't we re-elect him? And if he isn't, then we won't. Ain't democracy grand?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

If democracy is working then I agree, but it can be a useful way to impede (but not stop, you can easily pull a Putin and put in a puppet) the "president for life" attempts.

At least you can't just rig an election, you need to change the constitution or be willing to govern through proxy (which might eliminate a lot of the egomaniacs that are attracted to eternal presidency).

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

An incumbent has a huge advantage, though. Sometimes, if he is enough of an idiot or if the challenger is talented enough, an incumbent loses despite this huge advantage. But the advantage is significant enough that I think term limits keep things more democratic.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

That's a good point, and I'd add that often there are some things that are obviously right but politically risky that tend to only happen in second terms (e.g. pressuring Israel for peace).

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Nods to the soz/robert conversation. But what about a third or fourth term?
I'm ambivalent, seeing need for it easily abused by embedded misusers, the cats growing ever fatter. I also see getting up to speed just taking hold when lameducking starts to happen with only two terms - plus the potential good part Robert mentioned.

I'm almost for no term limits, but back off, because of historic rigging.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I should clarify that, as robert's "good part", my words, was a function of lameduckness.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Fortunately, amending the Constitution is a long and difficult process.

I used to be against term limits on the grounds that it denyed us the right to vote for whomever we wanted. Given the power of an incumbent to influence election results, and I mean legally, I have changed my mind. Now, I think it should be extended to congress.

Me too, roger.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Quote:

I agree, or think I do.

Most respectfully, Osso:
is that oxymoronic ?
Logically, that is not open to speculation.

How can u entertain any doubt
about what u agree with ?
That 's like saying:
"I don 't know whether I am planning
to trade in my car for a new SUV next week."

That is a function of your conscious mind.
If u dont see it in your thought processes,
then it is not there and y do not agree.

Its not like guessing about whether u have hi cholesterol.

Yes ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I see pros and I see cons. I am for no term limits but questioning myself. Is that hard for you? I see massive abuse in office worldwide, including but not limited to ordinary rampant corruption. I see some solid acquaintances whom I know limited in their terms. To some extent, this is all a joke if the underlying mechanism is dishonest.

One thing I'll notice is that government moves between being king of the hill and a pawn of interest groups... when it is even beginning to work at all.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Quote:

I see pros and I see cons.
I am for no term limits but questioning myself.

Is that hard for you?

I don 't understand the question.
U might mean either:
1. is it hard for me to understand what u posted.
(It is not; I surmise your meaning contextually.)

or

2. Is it hard for me to decide whether to support term limits.
(I oppose term limits except for the Presidency; i.e., I like the status quo.)

I was addressing cognitive analysis.
Too ofen, I see the manner of expression
wherein people speak of not knowing their conscious minds.
That 's impossible; its definitionally oxymoronic, as a contradiction in terms.

David

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Quote:

One thing I'll notice is that government moves between being king of the hill
and a pawn of interest groups...
when it is even beginning to work at all.

I 've gotta say:
when government stops being a pawn of interest groups
we ' ll be in severe trouble: that will mean that we 've lost democracy.

The same as a man cannot live in a vacuum,
democracy cannot live without special interest groups.
Without them, the damned politicians will just do
what thay damn well please, unthreatened.
WE, the electorate must constantly threaten politicians
with unemployment, thru our special interest groups,
who will WATCH them with meticulous care
in all 3 branches of government on federal, state and local levels.

A voter cannot do that, unaided.
Democracy can exist only thru special interest groups.
Maybe we shud have a national holiday -- the 5th of July-- to celebrate them.

I belong to a lot of special interest groups,
some of which I have created.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Have you never had indecision? What kind of fool are thou, not to have had moments of indecision?

1 Reply

Could this happen, or should it happen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know