Should we repeal the 22nd Amendment?

[Perky]

Which limits an infividual of either party to two full terms as President?

Hey....Limpballs brought it up. And Obama will only be 55 in 2016.

[RDANGELO]

1. Yes , and also the cloture(60 votes) rule in the senate.

[Captain Hilts]

6. That serves a legitimate purpose to insulate the senate from bandwagen jumping

or getting swept up in popular tides.

That's what the House is for.

[Perky]

12. Someone's been reading the Federalist Papers.

When the Founding Fathers opted for Bicameralism, It was not simply a comproimise for big and small states. It was about harnessing the passions that could be in play in the People's House. It was effectively a hedge against the passions of a largely illiterate electorate. There is still that need today.

The problem is with court appointees in that a handful of Senators who represent far less than 40% of the population can stymie a clear mahority of the electorate,, The rule should be different for lifetime appointees. Aand there should be no cluture on Executive Branch nominees. But on legislation, cloutrue is ultimatly a good thing.

[BlooInBloo]

30. The Senate makes its own rules.

[slackmaster]

33. That is strictly a matter of US Senate rules

Law doesn't have anything to do with it.

[Better Believe It]

38. That can easily be dumped by Democrats anytime by using the "nuclear option"

[InvisibleTouch]

2. Sounds good to me!

If someone's doing a great job, why should they get kicked out?

[Captain Hilts]

3. REPEAL. I've never supported it. We NEVER would have had GWB if no 22nd amendment. nt

[Oregone]

19. Maybe Reagan would still be president, and there would of been no Clinton...

With his body hooked up to a breathing machine.

[FSogol]

4. Yes, but just to freak out the freepers, birthers, bigots, and rapturists that make up today's GOP.

;-)

[Captain Hilts]

8. You'd have to set a future date for it to take effect. nt

[FSogol]

11. Ok, it can go into affect after 2012.

Should be good for a lot of laughs.

[Birthmark]

5. Why not?

It'll give the Rushpublicans something to blubber (no pun intended) about for the next eight years.

[and-justice-for-all]

7. The Hutt is a fearmongering idiot..nt

[napi21]

9. ABSOLUTELY NOT! Many people, at one time or another, really

liked one or another President, but we all have to think of unintended consequences in the future. ie" What if Reagan had been able to serve another term? I bet he would have been elected! Altzheimers and all! Clinton most likely would have gotten a 3rd term, and although I really liked him for many reasons, I don't think expanding many of his policies would have been good for the Country. Although he woulkd have been much better than Shrub!!!!!

Instead of overturning the 22nd Ann. I think we should push for a NEW ONE. One that limits the terms anyone can serve in the House & Senate.

[Bill McBlueState]

46. If this country is actually run on democratic principles,

then people should be able to keep voting for a particular individual to be President if they want.

[tom_paine]

10. HELL NO! First off, Washington himself set the standard, and while I now understand FDR's reasons

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

I am still glad it's now enshrined as an amendment.

And fuck Limpballs, he's a corrupt totalitarian monster. Who cares what he says?

[treestar]

13. Yes. We ought to have the option of voting the same people in

if we want to. The amendment simply removes that option.

[rvablue]

14. No, based on "be careful what you wish for."

If you say "yes" simply based on a 3rd term for "an Obama" just think what three terms of "a Shrub" would do to this country....we barely survived 2.

[RoadRage]

15. NO! What goes around, comes around...

I'm sure there are several here that would like to see Obama be president until he's 90... but think about this:

1. Good Presidents are sometimes good presidents because they push things through quickly.. always thinking they only have less then 4 years left.

2. Imagine if Reagan had done this... he had a lot of people who loved him too - and think what would have happend if he were allowed (or someone like him) to be president for longer then 8 years.. he did enough damage in that amount of time.

This rule is here for a reason. I love Obama, and I hope he paves the way for another brilliant democratic president in 2016. We can only hope!

[Bill McBlueState]

48. "The rule is here for a reason"

What if the reason is simply that 1950's Republicans didn't like FDR's legacy?

[bigwillq]

16. NO!

I am all for term limits. Think there should be limits in the House and Senate.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. I'm with President Bartlet on this one

No term limits but reform campaign finance laws so that incumbency doesn't produce such a quantitative advantage via money. Make it so that challengers stand a serious chance against incumbents. "When the field is level we have term limits, they're called elections."

Being in office for too long doesn't inherently make an elected official less responsive to their constituents. Its just that our system makes it so that people who are in office for a long time are allowed to be less responsive to their constituents.

[davidpdx]

28. I love the WW quotes

Geez I have to drag out my DVD collection and start watching those this summer. They are like old friends.

[Perky]

29. I have all seven seasons and probably watch4 or five episodes a week

The show was incomprably written, and the cast was great.

[davidpdx]

40. I have all 7 as well

[question everything]

18. No. Roosevelt should have never been elected in 1944

He was too sick and could not stand up to Stalin during the Yalta conference. And, of course, died a few months after he was sworn in.

And... this was the excuse that they used in 2004: that one does not "replace" the Commander in Chief during a war.

On the other hand, it has been suggested a one six-year term. This way, decisions are not influenced by the upcoming elections.

[Captain Hilts]

36. He could stand up to Stalin at Yalta, but he looked at the map, saw the location

of the Red Army and realized no one in the US would want to send their kids to defend Estonia, etc.

But, no, he should not have run in '44.

[TheKentuckian]

20. Sure, I don't believe in term limits.

I understand the arguments in favor of them but none of them trump the will of the people for me. Let's keep in real, we still got Reagan's 3rd term and all the suckitude that came with it. In fact we ideologically got five of them broken by a couple of terms of mellowed classic Republican (no snub to Bubba, that was pretty damn good for the time).

I think people overstress too. In about 150 years or so when it was possible, only one guy got more than two terms and probably only one more in Washington that could have, granted for a slew of reasons.
Evidence says the people will only go around with you more than twice if they really, really, really want to, and probably rightfully so. Raygun wasn't that damn popular when he was leaving office. I don't know if Duke would have taken him but he wouldn't have gotten Mondaled. More or less, I think events would have played out roughly the same except we probably avoid the shrub altogether by getting a third Clinton term and at least marginally the country would be less totally jacked up.

[Bill McBlueState]

49. great arguments

It's important to remember that we have 160 years of American history to demonstrate that, no, nothing horrible happened when Presidents were able to keep running for re-election.

The ability to vote for the candidate of your choice is one of the most important principles in our system.

[Bucky]

21. You left off the "Fuck no!" option

I still would have voted a simple "no" myself, because I refuse to indulge in crudities like typing "fuck" in a family friendly forum.

Here too, by the way.

[Canuckistanian]

34. This is a "family friendly forum"?

Fuck, I didn't know that. I would have curtailed my blowjob jokes.

Sorry.

[Renew Deal]

22. Not for Obama

If it's done, it should be for the next president. It probably shouldn't be done.

[last_texas_dem]

27. Agreed

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with repealing the 22nd, but, if done, such a repeal should not apply to the sitting president.

[rasputin1952]

23. The R's fought hard for the 22nd Amendment...

just to ensure they would never have to deal w/an FDR scenario again. What did Limbaugh want, another bush administration?

The 22nd is a double edged sword, but I favor limiting a president to 2 terms. The problem is, immediately following a second win, a president becomes a lame duck...except in an e,ergency, everything is based on shoring up a "legacy". bush's legacy is abject failure. Obama's legacy most likely will be one of repairing the damage, and moving forward on various societal changes...:)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Only if the repeal doesn't apply to the incumbent, and probably not even then.

Extending term limits to allow the guy in power to stay longer is a symptom of a democracy in decline.

You can have a perfectly good democracy without term limits, but if you've got them, getting rid of them is a danger sign.

[geek_sabre]

25. No

I also support term limits for the house and the senate.

[namecallerholic]

26. Why? So you can further increase the power of corporate lobbyists over the government?

[baldguy]

31. President-For-Life George W Bush

I don't think so.

[Bill McBlueState]

50. how do you think 2008 would have turned out

if it had been Bush vs Obama?

[slackmaster]

32. Sad to see almost 1/3 of us are damned fools who fail to learn from history

:nuke:

[NYC Liberal]

35. I say the 22nd is still too loose. Make it one term of 5 years.

Some people complain that it would tie the president's hands as he'd have "lame duck" status earlier and Congress would have much more power.

I say GOOD! We need a little less executive power, IMHO.

[Colobo]

37. I'd say yes, but imagine how much fraud would we see from presidents

not wanting to get out of office...

[Bill McBlueState]

51. was this a big problem

between 1789 and 1952?

[Clio the Leo]

39. I like the Obamas too much...

.... to make them endure more than 8 years.

[Sebastian Doyle]

41. Until we get rid of each and every electronic election stealing machine, and get a REAL media again

we should do NOTHING that could be used against us so blatantly. Believe me, if there were no 22nd Amendment, Chimpy would have stolen the last election just like he did the two previous ones.

[TheKentuckian]

42. I think he was out of cheat range.

I think they have to get at least 43-44% of the actual vote to fudge it without really stirring the pot. shrub was down to the base, McPhalin picked up some off of novelty, bigotry, and McCain's phantom air of moderation. I think they cynically damn near scraped up ever vote they could by selecting McCain and probably then Palin who may well have got as many to show up as she scared away plus providing the spotlight in a time they should have lost it. They pulled out every stunt and still couldn't get into range to cheat it without consequences. Bush would have be clocked and if he stole it, there probably would be massive civil unrest at the least.

Also, if there was no 22nd Amendment then there would be and likely never would be any Dimson. We'd probably be lamenting the choice of Jeb right about now but at least we wouldn't have had a double dose of the pure shit.

[Ken Burch]

43. And we should get ALL Democratic state legislatures in "Red" states

to make the Electoral College results proportional(any state can do that).

It's time that voters in Atlanta, for example, mattered as much in presidential elections as voters in Macon County. Same for Voters in Austin compared to voters in Waco and voters in New Orleans as compared to the Klan and Incest region of Northern Louisiana.

If we can't get rid of the EC yet, we can at least make it slightly less unfair.

And we need to get rid of the size limit on the U.S. House and elect it by PR in each state, with IRV for Senate races.

[Midwestern Democrat]

44. Yes - I don't believe in term limits. NT

[jefferson_dem]

45. No. By then it will be time for Barack to step aside...

...for Michelle.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

47. Hell no! Reagan would still be president Weekend at Bernie's style.