A president should only get ONE term of 6 years

[greenbriar]

Senators should get one term of 8 years

reps should get one term of 4 years


THIS WOULD END a lot of the crap bills, a lot of the injustice and imorality. Instead of turning around and building up for the next run, they might actually govern FOR THE PEOPLE

[realisticphish]

1. or would they

govern for themselves, since they would be lame duck as soon as they took office?

[NightWatcher]

2. it would cut down on 1st term pandering

[bbinacan]

3. I agree. n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

4. if they're doing such a bad job,

Why not just let the people vote them out?

An official who never has to stand for re-election might not care much about what the people want.

[PeaceNikki]

7. And will MORE likely be a cronie for lobbyists and corporations to poop and swoop while they can

[lisa58]

5. too much power/instant lame duck

[DJ13]

6. Could FDR have saved our country in one 6 year term?

:shrug:

[jwirr]

19. My father always said he could not have. He had to convince people

and the congress that his way was the way to go and only then did he finally get things going.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. Term limits encourage the party insiders...

...to run everything beyond the reach of accountability.

Imagine Karl Rove and his Machiavellian wannabes in power for life. That's what term limits do. The face changes, but the "string-pullers" continue from office holder to office holder.

Also imagine not being able to continue the good work of a politician that you support. Imagine 4, 6, 8 tears of good work ending because of "term limits".

We have many laws, rules, regulations covering corruption. We also have elections every 2 and 4 years. If we don't like the bums, vote 'em out. If they break the law, we can throw the book at 'em.

But, if we like them, we should have the right to continue our support for them.

[ashling]

9. But DU moderators should serve .....

forever!
:rofl:

[michreject]

10. Great idea

How's you arrive at 6 years?

[greenbriar]

13. a compromise between the two terms now allowed

I think it would be a good thing

[Raejeanowl]

27. Great Minds Think Alike, Mich

I saw you had the same idea on another thread a little earlier tonight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3275494

[grasswire]

11. absolutely

I've been advocating that for years. The campaigning negates any work the first term, as it is.

[niyad]

12. that would require constitutional amendments.

[greenbriar]

14. easily done

especially after this disastrous 8 years of president phuckstick

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. Just like ERA was easily done. Right? n/t

[Auggie]

15. The Constitution needs updating anyhow

A lot has changed in 200 years that Madison, etc. couldn't begin to imagine.

[greenbriar]

17. yea, like the horrible disaster of the bush presidency

uuuuuuuuuuuggggggggggg

[Auggie]

23. And corporate person hood.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. which rights do you wish to take away from

corporations?

Freedom of speech? Due process? Not having to quarter soldiers? Can the government just confiscate the bakery down the road? Can it prohibit Planned Parenthood from placing advertisements, or lobbying the government?

"End Corporate Personhood" just strikes me as a silly bumpersticker slogan. Nobody ever explains exactly what they mean.

[Auggie]

50. It gives corporations the same rights as people

From Wikipedia:

Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as representatives of their shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as natural persons, for example, the right against self-incrimination, right to privacy and the right to lobby the government.

Opponents claim that certain rights of natural persons, such as the right to political and other non-commercial free speech, are now exercised by corporations to the detriment of the American democratic process as provided under the Constitution.

From http://www.firstuucolumbus.org/corppers/cp1.htm

In 2003 Marc Kasky sued Nike and accused them of lying in one of their public relations campaigns about not using sweatshop labor to produce sneakers. Nike did not dispute the facts of their ads, but instead argued that the corporation had a 1st Amendment right to free speech.

It took years for the Ohio EPA to enforce its regulations on the factory egg farms of Buckeye Egg. Corporations can deny a regulatory body's access to their facility based on the 4th Amendment (protection against illegal search and seizure.) No more surprise inspections; now the EPA has to make an appointment.

In 2002 Synagro Corporation, a sludge hauling company, sued Porter Township, PA over laws aimed at stopping sewage dumping in their town. Synagro claimed the 14th Amendment protected them from this kind of discrimination.

For corporations, money equals free speech, and its use is protected by the 1st Amendment. Therefore they are legally allowed to engage in activities that were once considered bribes.

--------------------------------------------

If corporate lobbying did not exist we would have government sponsored health care in the U.S. We would be producing more sustainable, non-polluting energy. We would have better mass transit and higher fuel standards. We would not have illegally invaded Iraq. We would have better worker safety standards.

That kind of stuff.

[MonkeyFunk]

52. I think there's much that's not true there

Corporations do not have all the rights of people. They can't vote, for instance.

How is legal bribery allowed by "corporate personhood"? Corporations aren't allowed to give money to candidates. They can form PACs that do, but there are limits on those, and it's still against the law for a candidate to accept a bribe.

Are you saying corporations shouldn't have the right of free speech? The government should be able to censor or pre-approve what they say? Do you think that's wise? Say Planned Parenthood wanted to run a full-page ad in a newspaper - do you think it should have to be approved by the government before publication?

Say you and I go into business and open a bakery. The local government wants to add a tax on flour. Should we be forbidden from contacting our government officials to argue against it because we've formed a corporation?

I just think the problems we're facing won't be solved with bumper-sticker solutions.

[Horse with no Name]

30. They foresaw ALL of these problems

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Horse%20with%20no%20Name/44

[Auggie]

51. Thanks. But I don't see anything about corporate lobbying.

[Ichingcarpenter]

18. I would like to see a life term

for president Bush in Leavenworth.

[greenbriar]

22. agreed

for sure

[Yupster]

20. Interesting

There's only been one time when learned men sat down and rewrote the Constitution, and decided what to keep and what to change.

They decided to keep almost everything just the way it was.

One of the very few things they changed was a single six year term for president.

That was the Constitutional Convention organizing the Confederacy in 1861 held in Montgomery, Alabama.

Another change they put in was the line item veto for the president.

Interesting that some ideas can last 100 years.

[ShadowLiberal]

21. Or it could lead to more wars from people who have no fear of reelection

I think the best president to use to explain why this would be a bad idea would be James K Polk, even though he's ranked as one of the top 10 best presidents by historians.

Polk promised from the very beginning to serve only one term in office, and quickly became a very partisan and polarizing figure after getting elected. He promised to expand the US by getting all of the Oregon territory (a place claimed by both Britain and the US), as well as adding the Texas territory to the US. Despite his promise, I don't think Polk ever intended to get all of the Oregon territory, and always intended to compromise on it.

Polk pissed off northerners by compromising on the Oregon territory and giving half of it to Britain, while simultaneously placing American troops in the middle of land claimed by both Texas (now a state when Polk did this) and Mexico in order to start a war. Mexico predictably attacked our troops, so Polk asked congress to declare war because Mexico had 'shed American blood on American soil' in his own words. Plenty of northerners however (including Lincoln, then a member of the house) questioned the truthfulness of Polk's claims, but enough northerners of Polk's party joined the south in declaring war.

Polk's war and accomplishments may have helped give us a bunch of new states like California, etc, but he was a very unpopular and partisan figure of his time.

Now lets be realistic for a moment, in today's society no president is going to invade Mexico, Canada, or anywhere else, in the name of territorial expansion in the hopes of creating new states. A modern day one term president James Polk would start a war similar to Vietnam or Iraq today. A one term president would have almost no fear about being extremely partisan and saying "screw what 70%+ of the nation thinks, I'm fulfilling my agenda whether they like it or not".

[hellbound-liberal]

24. And when they leave they should take THEIR Supreme Court "Justices" with them

those nine people have WAY too much influence on the nation during and after their tenure on the bench. The Judicial Branch has been poisoned with politics and needs to be reformed.

[greenbriar]

25. agreed. N/T

.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

26. I disagree

A President elected for one six-year term is what they do in the Philippines and, to be fair, it hasn't worked out badly for them over there. But it also means that the President has to worry less about his own accountability to the people and there is more room for cronyism, nepotism and deal-making at the expense of the interests of the people.

Furthermore, even if Presidents were limited to one term and were thus prevented from having to build up to their next run, they'd probably still want to see their legacy preserved and the successor of their choice installed. So they'd likely still do all the vote-pandering and electioneering they do now

It is the same for Senators who were only allowed one eight-year term. Sure, some Senators such as Ted Kennedy and Russell Feingold, would use those eight years to seek to implement legislation for the benefit of the people. But many others would use the opportunity to line their own pockets and abuse their power and privilege while they still could. In fact a one-term Senator would have even less accountability than a one-term President because at least a one-term President may have to face mid-term elections whereas a one-term Senator would face no consequences for his actions and there would be no limitations on how he or she could abuse his power

[Horse with no Name]

28. I never used to believe in term limits

but I am now. The good ones aren't good enough to sacrifice having to keep the bad ones.

[Yupster]

31. I agree with term limits too

If some good public official (Ted Kennedy for example) gets term limited, there are plenty of other ways for him to serve.

If a politician is that good, he can even help more by being a governor, senator, house member, cabinet member, businessman, than just being the same job for 50 years.

[Horse with no Name]

32. As Al Gore and John Edwards have proven

They are NOW public servants in the truest sense of the term. Would be nice to have people in all aspects of our government serving the people OUTSIDE of Congress. Maybe this country would be great again.:(

[L. Coyote]

29. TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE idea.

How do you get rid of the A-Holes that way?

[Bucky]

49. You get rid of the A-Holes by turning them all into influential lobbyists.

Hell, someone's gotta write the laws when you got a Congress all full of greenhorns.

[NYC Liberal]

33. Here's an idea: we keep the 2 term limit, BUT

we make it so that for their 2nd election, they need to get a certain percentage of the vote. That would keep them from barely edging out a win just as they are on the cusp of having most people disapprove of them (see: Bush, 2004, 50.7%).

Say, maybe, 54%.

[CK_John]

34. There is no popular vote, it is EC. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

37. Well that's if we went to a popular vote system.

But even if we kept the EC, it could still work within that. You'd need more than just a simple majority of electors.

[JI7]

35. disagree about limiting Congressional terms

California did it and it has really messed up the state.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. to clarify

we didn't limit congressional terms - no state can do that. We limited the state legislature and statewide elected offices.

And yes, it's been a failure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. No, it would not

term limits sound lovely in theory, but they don't work as advertised

See Mexico for a good example

Sugragio efectivo, no reeleccion...

Mexican Presidents get six years... that's it

Congress criters get elected for two year terms, and can be reelected only after leaving power for one term... so you can be in for one, and then off for one... see the problem?

And Senators I think for six... not sure

It is more than just elections, and for how long.

We need to get special interests OFF the racket and not allow for swinging doors, for example and nationally funded, federally funded elections, so they can work and not have to get the moneys

And you must assume that you will have a certain level of corruption regardless

[jimmyfungus]

38. FRIENDS, DO NOT FORGET THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY

Maybe single terms would do all of that. MAYBE.

But isn't the entire point of Democracy to be able to vote for whoever you want? If there is someone out there who is the best for the job, why should they be disqualified because they already served a term?

If Clinton could have run for a 3rd term, we might have avoided the George W Bush disaster. A 3rd term of Reagan, and we would never had Bush Sr's Persian Gulf War... No Persian Gulf War, no American troops in Saudi Arabia...no troops in Saudi Arabia, no 9-11... If Eisenhower could have served a 3rd or 4th term, perhaps we would have avoided Viet Nam

Those are all big IF's but they are thoughts to ponder.

_________________________________________________

the world's of politics, religion, and self-improvement all topped on one mystical pizza: http://spiritual-political-self-help.blogspot.com /

[MonkeyFunk]

39. disagree

I like being able to vote for the candidate of my choice. Often, that candidate is an experienced one.

Term limits here in California have been an utter failure. Lobbyists and staffers now have far more power than they should. And last I looked, the state isn't in any better shape than it was before.

[Hardrada]

40. Shrub should get a life term without possibility of parole

and not in the WH.

[JCMach1]

43. Get rid of the anti-FDR Amendment... Imagine if we had

Clinton in-place the last 8 years instead of 'W'...

The world would be a much different and BETTER place.

[Thothmes]

46. Don't forge that Reagan could have probably won a third term.

Could we live through that.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. Unlikely

he was already suffering from signs of alzheimers. He was pushing 80. Even though popular, I doubt he would've won a third term - I'm not sure he would've even run for one.

[Freedom Train]

44. The CSA Constitution established one six-year term for the office of President

:patriot:

(That should be a Confederate flag, but there were none among the smilies)

[iamthebandfanman]

45. sure would be nice if every year they werent campaigning n/t

[Andy Canuck]

48. Perhaps a shift to a parliamentary system where public pressure

is far more likely to remove an errant leader. The Presidency was a creation in response to the idea of a monarchy. When the Presidency was created it was far less powerful than a monarch and now it is far more powerful than a monarch. It isn't that the Presidency has changed so much in its power, it is that power has changed with respect to the presidency.

[dysfunctional press]

53. the always highly vaunted founders NEVER envisioned a "career politician"...

or lobbyists.
why don't the red-white-and-blue conservatives stalwarts in congress ever mention THAT about them?

[jpljr77]

54. I've always been a fan of the 8/12/12 proposals.

Current Presidential terms limits would apply (2 terms, 8 years)
Senators would get 2 terms (12 years)
Representatives would get 6 terms (12 years)

I think term limits are more important for Congress members than executives. There's WAY more corruption in that branch, imo.

[Goblinmonger]

56. So vote them out

we have term limits in place already. They're called elections.

[jpljr77]

57. Oh, a totally admirable talking point, indeed.

Of course, the reality of an incumbent facing re-election -- especially to the House -- against a challenger kind of breaks that down pretty fast.

Ever wonder why Congress typically has approval ratings in the Bush range, but more than 90% of incumbents get re-elected?

[Goblinmonger]

58. Because when everyone bitches about how much congress sucks

they are talking about the other guy. They actually like their guy.

Do you think money would suddenly not be a factor if there were term limits? That you and I would get elected? Of course not. And if there were term limits, who gives a shit who they took money from in their last term. What is your district going to do to you when they find out you took a shit load of money from some crappy special interest? Vote you out? Oops, I'm term limited out.

[jpljr77]

59. While money is a huge factor, it's not what I was talking about.

This is basic government corruption 101: House members using their district staffs to campaign nearly 'round the clock, since of course, Reps are always campaigning. It's a violation of law, but every single one of them does it.

Also, in the context of what I think the intent of the OP was, people love their guy because he brings in the pork. And that's kind of the point.

[Blue_Tires]

60. elections are a mere formality in 'safe' districts

not to mention the gerrymandering that goes on, picking and choosing areas more likely to vote for you...

[DangerDave921]

55. Term limits violate freedom

If people want to vote for a person, who are we to tell them no?