Comments on: Time to End Presidential Term Limits?

By: djneylon

djneylon — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:10:19 +0000

If we had term limits for Congress (say three terms in House, two in Senate), the two term limit for Presidents might not be so bad (BTW, this was custom following Washington, until FDR ran for third and fourth terms, which led to 22nd amendment preventing future from throwing tradition out the window)

By: RJN

RJN — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 07:40:01 +0000

I agree with MrGone. All elected public officials should have term limits. Too much power accrues to those who stay in office for long periods.

Twelve years for all members of Congress seems enough. While we are at it, how about age 74 for SCOTUS.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:30:47 +0000

I'm liking Stormy's idea, if it applies to both houses of Congress as well.

By: Mort

Mort — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:34:07 +0000

I say one 6 year term for Pres. and a max of 10 years for congress. Then get the hell out of the way for someone else.

To an earlier comment about Clinton being elected in 2000 and possible 2004 I say - Thank God we have some limits. After all he is to blame for most of the problems we are having now. Belive-dat!

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:36:46 +0000

Another proposal: no limit on the number of presidential terms, but add the stipulation that they must be non-consecutive. i.e. If Joe Doe is elected in 2008, he can't run in 2012, but can in 2016.

By: legion

legion — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:17:11 +0000

Spot on, MrGone! (Hey - that rhymes!)
I also don't think the founding fathers ever imagined the general populace would care as little about elections as they seem to these days - the advantage in (and need for) fundraising and name recognition that an incumbent has outweighs the threat of not being able to continually re-elect the same joker (IMHO).

By: G A Phillips

G A Phillips — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:13:04 +0000

MrGone you have a great point, beautiful. Don't think I can handle another 30 years of Ted Kennedy.

By: MrGone

MrGone — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:53:49 +0000

While the framers never intended term limits they also never anticipated a permanent new class - career politicians.

To me, this is another example of why the constitution must be updated occasionally. Term limits for all! Let public service be just that, not a career choice.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:47:32 +0000

Akhil Amar discusses this issue in his new book on the Constitution, and I have to agree that the weakening of the Presidency in the 2d term is not a good thing. Though anything that rules out 12 years of Bush is not fundamentally wrong.

Amar also notes that the 22d appears to have raised the prestige of the vice-presidency, which is certainly a curious side-effect.

By: Tano

Tano — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:31:37 +0000

While there may be advantages to term limits, the fact that they violate the foundational principle of democracy - that the people should be free to choose who they want, makes them totally unacceptable. Period. And that goes for Congress as well as the presidency. Arguments that try to justify one as opposed to the other are incoherent.

Clinton did not suffer any lack of popularity in his second term. He continued upward into the low sixties, and remained there, remarkably stable - despite the vulgar shenanaigans of his opponents in Congress.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:13:07 +0000

In general, I trust the idea of the people getting their choice and having to live with it. On the other hand, I also see a value of the "fresh choice" forced by term limits. With 98+% of congressional incumbents being returned, I like a combination of term limits with the ability of the people to override the limits. For example, a representative would need a simple majority for his first re-election. Every re-election after that, he would need a progressively higher percentage (maxing out at some relatively high percentage). If 3/4 of a district wants the guy to represent them, let him stay however long. He is obviously representing the vast (vs simple) majority of the voters. Of course if you set the level at 75% and you only got 74%, then the choice of 26% would be the representative for the next two years. Then they would either need to have gained enough support to represent a majority or lose to someone who can get a majority.

Of course, there would be other unintended consequences that I haven't thought about. And that lies at the heart of any change. As bad as the current system is, there is no other system that I see around the world that I like the results of better. So going in and mucking about with the mechanics of our political system should not be done lightly.