Is it time to repeal the 22nd Amendment?

[craigmatic]

Let's face it the revolutionary generation didn't have all the answers and George Washington didn't like being president in the first place. The whole reason why we have this amendment in the first place is because republicans were afraid of another FDR coming to power. The only president this amendment actually affected was Clinton who probably could've beat bush in 2000. Other countries run just fine with allowing premiers staying in for decades. Eventually they will lose an election or their party will turn on them. That's just my two cents what say you?

[immoderate]

1. Yep. Voters know best. -- Even when they don't know.

--imm

[Warpy]

24. Consider we'd have had another 10 years of daddy Bush and Nancy Reagan

running the country while they used Disney's anitmatronic Reagan for speeches.

It can work both ways, in other words.

[immoderate]

39. Any system can go awry. It's a matter of who bears responsibility.

If it's on the people, they have less reason to revolt.

--imm

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. The term limits allows policiticians to "play the clock"

They use the term limit in both good and bad ways, but mainly against a sitting President. In the last two years of any President's term, they try to put off any votes until the next election.

If there was the threat that the President might STILL BE THERE, it would eliminate the "playing the clock" game in Washington.

i see no problems with a President serving 3 terms.. especially if the voters want it.

[nomorenomore08]

7. Good point. "Running out the clock" is always (or nearly always) an issue during second terms. n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. No

Eight years is enough of anyone.

[Cayenne]

13. What, you didn't want a third Reagan term?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. I'm assuming you forgot the sarcasm smiley n/t

[caraher]

4. Clinton would have mopped the floor with Bush

On the other hand, would Reagan have gone for a third term? For his handlers, his diminishing mental faculties may have been a plus, and I don't think Dukakis would have fared well given his epic failure against the Poppy Bush (far less "charismatic" than Reagan).

I think W was just happy to be done. In a lot of ways the limit is a blessing to the holder of office... Obama might also be pleased, in some ways, to know his job is done come January 2017, and happy to get part of his life back. FDR was probably an aberration in his embrace of the office.

Overall, I've always felt the best "term limits" are those determined by voters at the ballot box...

[CBGLuthier]

5. We would have had 23 years of fucking Reagan even as he slowly turned into a vegetable.

American voters are kind of stupid. We need term limits for all national offices not none of them.

[Brigid]

6. No way.

I barely survived eight years of Bush with my sanity, knowing that we would be rid of him at the end of his second term no matter what. How many of us counted the days?

[nomorenomore08]

8. That's also a very valid point. n/t

[Brigid]

12. I would postulate . . .

That only the knowledge that there would be a definite end to Bush's regime prevented outright riots after the Ielection of 2004.

[geek tragedy]

17. Bush wouldn't have beaten Clinton and would

have gotten Mondaled against Obama.

[NYC_SKP]

9. I don't know unless Huffington Post tells me what to think because I'm a......

Back it up with Kardashian Kreds or some Snookie Swoop!

[nomorenomore08]

10. I think there are good arguments to be made one way or the other. So in the end, I'm neutral. n/t

[MohRokTah]

11. I would oppose the repeal of the 22nd amendment to my dying breath.

8 years is plenty for an office elected nationwide.

[edgineered]

15. Our thoughts are similar

Both of us seem to be in support of expanding the 22nd to include all politically seated positions.

[still_one]

14. No. 2 terms is enough

[Nye Bevan]

18. I'm fine with letting the voters decide

if they want the president to serve a third or fourth term.

[tritsofme]

19. Reagan would have won in 1988, possibly even 1992.

Scarier yet, even as he continued to be ravaged by Alzheimer's, he could have even been pushed toward a 1996 bid.

Regardless of that situation, I think 8 years is enough for one person. Too much power has accumulated to the modern presidency to allow a man to wield it indefinitely.

[Travis_0004]

20. I would like to see one 6 year term

Run on campaign promises then you get 6 years to try to fulfill them. A president won't waste a year of his first term campaigning, won't need lobbiest (since they will never run again) and has the freedom to make the tough choices.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. Great ideas

On all grounds.

[Brigid]

23. I like this idea.

[davidpdx]

30. That too has it's drawbacks

Here in Korea, the president serves a single 5 year term. I personally think that is too long to go without having a say in who leads our country. Also with a constitutionally limited single term running for reelection is not an option.

[Generic Other]

22. We would end up with a Cheney for life

Come on people! It's the only power we have over the bastards.

[Nye Bevan]

27. Only if that's what the people want.

Remember, they were done with George Bush Sr after a single term.

[Generic Other]

28. Hanging chads, voting machines, Dieboldt

Butterfly ballot, recounts, voter ID, felon lists, purges, SCOTUS decisions...right, just what the people want...

[Nye Bevan]

29. Were Obama's victories legitimate? (nt)

[Generic Other]

32. Don't ask me

He sure told a whole lot of whoppers as far as I can see. And some people might consider that fraud.

[spanone]

25. i trust the people but not the system.

[CK_John]

26. I would like it changed to one 6yr term. nt

[davidpdx]

31. I answered this one above as well to someone else

Here in Korea, the president serves a single 5 year term. I personally think that is too long to go without having a say in who leads our country. Also with a constitutionally limited single term running for reelection is not an option.

[devils chaplain]

33. No.... 8 years is plenty.

No kings, please.

[jaysunb]

34. I'd like to see a six term with a public option on a second

shorter time, like two or four years.

Public option meaning the voters would be allowed to have a referendum in the fifth year on granting the ability to be on the ballot again.

With all the complexities of the modern office, I can't think of any one--other than maybe Clinton--that would want to offer themselves up for the job.

[Boreal]

35. "The whole reason why we have this amendment..."

Huh? The 2nd amendment has nothing do with Republicans or FDR.

I don't like guns, have never owned one, but support the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the reasons that the Founders did.

Disarm police and military (the mass murderers in the world) and then we can talk.

[Duckhunter935]

37. well since this is not about the 2nd amendment

but the 22nd, you might want to revise your comment.

[Boreal]

38. Oh, no!

haha, my (very) bad, lol! I think it's time for me to go to bed.

(I still want the military and police disarmed, though).

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Nnnnnnope. TERM LIMITS FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS. ONE IN, ONE OUT. Then you can run again.

[badtoworse]

40. The short answer is NO.