Should the US change the Constitution so presidents can run

I said no, but I wouldn't mind seeing the term extended to six years for one term. c.i.

Yes. I do not think the government should be able to tell me who I can or cannot have as my president*. (I am likewise against term limits for the same reason.)

============
* Beyond the original constitutional limits.

I have difficulty with ANY politician who becomes too entrenched. I think that when a politician becomes too "comfortable" in the job, there is a lot of possibilities for abuse. Therefore I think that there should be two term limits for not only presidents, but also senators and representatives!

But shouldn't I be able to vote for him or her again if I choose? Why should the government be allowed to effectively vote someone out just because you and some citizens think that's a good thing?

I too don't care for some of what we get from entrenched politicians, but that doesn't mean I think the cure is to take away some of the power of my vote.

Well, obviously term limits are not inimical to constitutional principles--for examples, justices of the Supreme Court can only serve so long as they are living (a thought which gives Liberals all over the country a great sense of relief). The voting age, as well as the age for office holding are limited--also a good thing, in that we are not, therefore, confronted by President Michael, or President Brittny . . .

All seriousness aside, may i point out that serving just two terms was nothing more than Washington's precedent (he was a sharper guy than puny historians have made him out to be), until after Franklin Roosevelt had served three full terms, and been elected to a fourth. It was the incoming power of the Republicans, returning after more than a dozen years in the wilderness, which created the climate for, and resulted in the ratification of an ammendment to limit the Presiden to the lesser of two elected terms or ten years (i.e., if a Veep succeeds and serves three years, s/he cannot run for and hold that office more than once, because an election to another term would overrun the 10 year limit). So, in fact, it would require the repeal of an existing ammendment to raise the starkly horrible spectre of the Shrub and us, together until death do us part.

Scrat:

Any citizen is free to vote for whomever they want as a write in.

Setanta - I would welcome the repeal of that amendment, even at the risk of a 3rd Clinton term.

I see no reason why a president cannot serve a third term. However, inorder to assure that he or she not become to entrenched it should not be three consecutive terms.
As for congress there should IMO opinion be term limits as well as age limits. We should never allow a doddering old man to remain in office regardless of the fools who voted for him. Strom Thurmond comes to mind.
I would in addition change the house term to four years.

I voted NO.

Fact is, during resent months, I began hoping the Constitution could be amended to limit presidents to 3 years in office.

I would love to have Bill Clinton back -=- but 2 terms is more than enough. I suspect, by the way, I'll be able to vote for a Clinton for vice-president in the next election.

Well, i hope that this will not be taken as an aggressive criticism, Au, rather it should be seen simply commentary on the ideas here:

The idea about non-consecutive terms has some appeal, although it could still result in a nightmare scenario, of Prez and Veep changing roles every other term (although improbable, it should give conservatives pause, in that the only Presidents who could have pulled this off so far have been Washington and the two Roosevelts, and although Theodore Jr. there was a Republican, he was considered a radical [god i crack me up!] and was never very chummy with GOP powers that were--that scenario would be most likely to occur with a Liberal or a Leftist radical, and a heavy voter turn out--if you object that Reagan could have pulled it off, as well, i'd say, and not in a mean spirit, to consider his current mental state).

As for congressional term limits, it behooves the voters to make up their collective mind on this one, simply for pragmatic reasons. State delegations with term limits would eventually have no committee chairs, so long as there are sufficient members from states without term limits who enjoy bullet-proof electability (Is that a word? Do i care?).

Age limits are genuinely problematic for me, for two reaons. First, for every Strom Thurmond in our history (and there've been a few, Roger B. Taney comes to mind) there has been a Benjamin Franklin. In the second place, youth is no guarantee of either sense or leadership--Dan Quail leaps to my mind.

Finally, the constitutional convention determined upon terms for representatives of two years precisely so that they not become entrenched without answering to the electorate on a regular and frequent basis. The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments ratified, but they are amendments 3-12 first propsed, in the First Congress. The first proposed amendment has never been, and surely never will be ratified. The second amendment proposed, in September 1787, was ratified in May, 1992, and reads: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened." Which in sum, means the bastiches can't vote themselves a raise and collect on it without first facing the electorate. Since then, they have concluded that they need to vote any such raise quickly, immediately after the opening of the first session of Congress succeeding an election, in the hope that voters will have forgotten in two years. Them boys back there in them olden days was right sharp on the subject of protecting the people from potential abuse of office, and on the matter of the length of term for Representatives, i agree with them.

Frank, I think Hillary is gonna wait til 2008. c.i.

Setanta
I understand this is a forum where opinions were meant to be expressed. Although others do I will never take offense to criticism as long as it is expressed in a civil manner. What would a2k be without differences of opinion? An Amen corner?
So sock it to me.

She's already had the #2 position in the White House. I doubt she'll want it again.

Yes, she will wait until 2008 to run, but by then the collective political baggage she will have accumulated will have soured New Yorkers on her, and that will turn the tide against her ever getting closer to the Oval Office than she has already been.

She will not get the Dems' nod in 2008, nor will she try for it thereafter. She will write a book the following year, in which she will catalogue all the reasons she never really wanted to be president. After she loses her Senate seat (not sure when), she and Bill will finally divorce.

(Putting crystal ball away.)

I voted yes to more than 2 but no to more than 2 consecutive.

I'd prefer unlimited but no consecutive.

Scrat
If I had your crystal ball I would be as rich as Warren Buffet. At least you should have the humility to say in my opinion.

If the crystal ball referrence didn't get the point across that I was having fun making some purely baseless predictions, then nothing will.

I believe this wins you the A2K Knee-jerk Reaction of the Day Award. Try not to take everything so seriously, okay?