Why do we have term limits?
Question: If someone is doing a good job shouldn't they be allowed to stay in power as long as the people still want him/her there? So what if someone is President for life...if they do a good job and the people vote for them every 4 years why kick them out of the White House? It's not like they will become like Fidel Castro. We would still have the option to elect someone new if they are abusing their power.
Answers: In the federal government, the only limits are for the President; Congress can be re-elected as many times as people vote for them.
The limits for president, as others have pointed out, weren't originally in the Constitution. Washington, after his second term, announced that, since he didn't want the presidency to be like a monarchy, would not run for a third term.
This set a sort of precident, and no other tried for more than two consecutive terms.
Until FDR, who was first elected in 1932, and was elected 4 times (dying early in his 4th term).
Frankly, I'm not sure why -- beside republicans not having liked having a democrat in for so long, and not liking him -- the amendment was passed, really. Roosevelt was really popular (which is why he was elected four times).
It would take repealing that amendment to take the limit away.
I don't approve of the push for limits on Congress -- it's not the same, as they aren't king-like but always have to work with all the others. There are many I wish their voters would dump, but there are also a few who have been in a long time, that I'm happy are still there.
It wouldn't make a difference for this election either way. Bush wouldn't want another term, as he doesn't much like the job anyway, and he's so unbelievably unpopular that he'd lose if he tried.
In principle, I agree that it should be up to the voters. I just wish the voters were smarter about it and would stop sending back to office those who keep hurting us.
As for state government, some (like mine, California) have limits, others don't. That's up to the states.
Most people say because: When a person is in the Government for too long that he gets detached from average people.
It's because our founding forefathers didn't want another king. The limits make sure no one can be in power too long.
the founding fathers saw that power corrupts and the longer your in power the more corrupt you become. term limits allow the people to replace the government when they feel like and limit corruption. in the 1930's and early forty's people saw how even a good president can go bad and lose energy to work properly and changed the Constitution to only allow two terms for the president so the he does not ever gain that much power again.
We have presidential term limits because of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment came about because Republicans were concerned that the president could turn into a benevolent dictator after Franklin Roosevelt was elected for 4 terms. Unfortunately Congress felt no such need to limit their own time in office.
Because power corrupts. The longer you hold office, the more corrupt a politician becomes. That's why we need term limits for Congress. The Founding Fathers never intended for anyone to be a career politician. They were smart enough to realize that people in positions of authority quickly learn how to game the system so they end up getting more money, power, prestige, etc. Look at Ted Kennedy -- he is the most useless individual on the planet, and the people of Massachusetts keep voting him back into office. Why? What has he done other than gain 100 pounds, spout a bunch of mindless rhetoric, and line his pockets with money from taxpayers and lobbyists? And he's just one example. Here's a scary thought: If term limits were done away with, Slick Willie would be campaiging for President the very next day. The only thing worse for this country than putting him back in office is putting his wife in the Oval Office.
It used to be that way until, I believe it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It would have been nice if it hadn't been changed.
Because of the 22nd Amendment which, in my opinion, should be repealed.
Also, if you read the Bill of Rights, look at the 9th and 10th amendments: all rights not delineated in the Constitution shall be left to the States and the People, respectively.
Thus, term limits (Congressional, statewide, and Presidential electoral votes) should be decided by the people of each state or a super-majority of their statewide representatives.
As things stand at present, many candidates in gerrymandered districts could stay in office indefinitely if not for term limits.
two words:
George Bush
Answers: In the federal government, the only limits are for the President; Congress can be re-elected as many times as people vote for them.
The limits for president, as others have pointed out, weren't originally in the Constitution. Washington, after his second term, announced that, since he didn't want the presidency to be like a monarchy, would not run for a third term.
This set a sort of precident, and no other tried for more than two consecutive terms.
Until FDR, who was first elected in 1932, and was elected 4 times (dying early in his 4th term).
Frankly, I'm not sure why -- beside republicans not having liked having a democrat in for so long, and not liking him -- the amendment was passed, really. Roosevelt was really popular (which is why he was elected four times).
It would take repealing that amendment to take the limit away.
I don't approve of the push for limits on Congress -- it's not the same, as they aren't king-like but always have to work with all the others. There are many I wish their voters would dump, but there are also a few who have been in a long time, that I'm happy are still there.
It wouldn't make a difference for this election either way. Bush wouldn't want another term, as he doesn't much like the job anyway, and he's so unbelievably unpopular that he'd lose if he tried.
In principle, I agree that it should be up to the voters. I just wish the voters were smarter about it and would stop sending back to office those who keep hurting us.
As for state government, some (like mine, California) have limits, others don't. That's up to the states.
Most people say because: When a person is in the Government for too long that he gets detached from average people.
It's because our founding forefathers didn't want another king. The limits make sure no one can be in power too long.
the founding fathers saw that power corrupts and the longer your in power the more corrupt you become. term limits allow the people to replace the government when they feel like and limit corruption. in the 1930's and early forty's people saw how even a good president can go bad and lose energy to work properly and changed the Constitution to only allow two terms for the president so the he does not ever gain that much power again.
We have presidential term limits because of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment came about because Republicans were concerned that the president could turn into a benevolent dictator after Franklin Roosevelt was elected for 4 terms. Unfortunately Congress felt no such need to limit their own time in office.
Because power corrupts. The longer you hold office, the more corrupt a politician becomes. That's why we need term limits for Congress. The Founding Fathers never intended for anyone to be a career politician. They were smart enough to realize that people in positions of authority quickly learn how to game the system so they end up getting more money, power, prestige, etc. Look at Ted Kennedy -- he is the most useless individual on the planet, and the people of Massachusetts keep voting him back into office. Why? What has he done other than gain 100 pounds, spout a bunch of mindless rhetoric, and line his pockets with money from taxpayers and lobbyists? And he's just one example. Here's a scary thought: If term limits were done away with, Slick Willie would be campaiging for President the very next day. The only thing worse for this country than putting him back in office is putting his wife in the Oval Office.
It used to be that way until, I believe it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It would have been nice if it hadn't been changed.
Because of the 22nd Amendment which, in my opinion, should be repealed.
Also, if you read the Bill of Rights, look at the 9th and 10th amendments: all rights not delineated in the Constitution shall be left to the States and the People, respectively.
Thus, term limits (Congressional, statewide, and Presidential electoral votes) should be decided by the people of each state or a super-majority of their statewide representatives.
As things stand at present, many candidates in gerrymandered districts could stay in office indefinitely if not for term limits.
two words:
George Bush
More questions & answers:
- How would you feel if Ron Paul were elected president?
- When will the Republicans get their 'facts' straight?
- Is the Nov 6th 2007 elections good news for Democrats?
- Is this how Democrats reduce the influence of special interest groups? A fund raising goal of $154 million?
- There's only two weeks to go for the Federal Election.?
- Who other than me thinks that it is outrageous that none of the presidential frontrunners support gay rights?
- Why are you independent/unaffiliated with a party? (voting)?
- Will people vote for Obama just because.....?
- Free voting in house of commons? Pros and Cons?
- Aren't you sick of the status quo of the past 5 Presidents?
- Looks like Judge Judy is for Rudy (Larry King), will this seal the deal?
- Who in thier right mind would vote for Mayor Bloomberg?
I'd look outside to see if the invasion fleet had landed yet.
Latest tallies have the Mess in the Middle East costing us nearly 2 TRILLION DOLLARS...2 trillion.
It's so obscene that we are borrowing money from China to fund this war.
Lets bring our
It's so obscene that we are borrowing money from China to fund this war.
Lets bring our
I notice that all the GOP victories including the governorship in Miss and most of the rest of the statewide offices and victories in other states werent mentioned. VA was a close campaign- not a mass
You've correctly pointed out that the emperor has no clothes. I would like to point out that the Repugnicans have none either.
That is why I'm most likely going to vote for Dr. Ron Paul. H
That is why I'm most likely going to vote for Dr. Ron Paul. H
I have way more than two weeks to make up my mind and haven't made it up yet.
To be fair, that is why they are frontrunners. I personally agree that gay people should be allowed to marry and serve in the military and so on, but I am in the minority.
Approximately 85% o
Approximately 85% o
I want to vote for the person I feel best represents my views without having to have the stigma of a party affiliation attached..
yes dey will
dis years election 4 president is very controversial
one one side dere is a white woman runnin nd the other a black man
it will b interesting 2 c the results
dis years election 4 president is very controversial
one one side dere is a white woman runnin nd the other a black man
it will b interesting 2 c the results
Last Time I checked, this was America! (And just walk away. By the time they realize what you said, your gone.)
Yes! No true Patriot would ever make it! Ron Paul would be a start, but only that! A small step in a bigger process of taking back our government. Unless Ron had some support in one of the other branc
All due respects to Judge Judy, who is one smart cookie, I don't care for Rudy. But then they are both from New York, and I'm not. Neither did Oprah's nod to Obama impress me to vote for him. I am SIC
Nobody in their right mind would, but the anti-gun and pro-amnesty people would.
The Politics & Government informations are posted by the website users and for your use only, and without responsibility on endihm.com.