Twenty-Second Amendment

[kah]

What do you think about the limit of two terms that a president is allowed to serve?

Here is the text from the National Archives.

AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I say that's two terms too many. Give 'em a week, if they haven't fixed everything by then, sack 'em and give someone else a shot!

:)

That amendment was a response to FDR's 4 terms, and was kind of mean spirited at the time. I understand the reasoning for it, as it is designed to prevent one person from becoming like the "king" of America, but it was overkill in my opinion. If someone isn't doing the job, traditionally they aren't going to be President for too long. The election process as is, is really the only necessary check and balance as far as I can tell.

[neglet]

If someone isn't doing the job, traditionally they aren't going to be President for too long. The election process as is, is really the only necessary check and balance as far as I can tell.

If this is true, we explain GW Bush's second term how???? :ohwell:

Actually, I think the 22nd Amendment is needed now more than ever. With the apathetic electorate rarely bothering to vote out incumbents at the federal level, and with campaign spending at outrageous levels, there's no incentive to explore new candidates who may have new ideas. Honestly, if Bush were eligible for a third term, don't you think the Republican financiers and party faithful would continue to support him, despite his current low approval ratings? (And the same would have gone for Clinton in 2000 on the Democratic side.)

However, because the president is limited to two terms, at least once every eight years the political party in power has a chance to explore new ideas and new candidates. (Note that they don't always take the chance to look at new ideas, but at least they're put out there for public consumption.) I mean, would a more moderate type of Republican like Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney even be getting any attention right now if Bush could run again? I don't think so--at least, it wouldn't be as likely.

[fastcar]

Bottom line. If 22 was repealed tomorrow, it would be Clinton vs. Bush in 2008 and Clinton would win, IMHO

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

If this is true, we explain GW Bush's second term how???? :ohwell:

Actually, I think the 22nd Amendment is needed now more than ever. With the apathetic electorate rarely bothering to vote out incumbents at the federal level, and with campaign spending at outrageous levels, there's no incentive to explore new candidates who may have new ideas. Honestly, if Bush were eligible for a third term, don't you think the Republican financiers and party faithful would continue to support him, despite his current low approval ratings? (And the same would have gone for Clinton in 2000 on the Democratic side.)

However, because the president is limited to two terms, at least once every eight years the political party in power has a chance to explore new ideas and new candidates. (Note that they don't always take the chance to look at new ideas, but at least they're put out there for public consumption.) I mean, would a more moderate type of Republican like Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney even be getting any attention right now if Bush could run again? I don't think so--at least, it wouldn't be as likely.

I don't think Dubya could win another election, even if his opponent was Jethro Bodine.

I'm a Republican, and was (emphasis on "was") a very staunch Bush supporter at one time. He's not the right man for the job at this point. We had a need to show strength after 9/11, and we did. Now we need to end our military presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and allow the people who live there to stand up for themselves.

We talk about freedom, now it is time to put our money where our mouths are. It is up to Iraqis and Afghanis to take full control of their countries. If we don't like where they end up, too bad. Freedom is people deciding for themselves. At this point we're just imposing (or trying to) our will on these places, and that is wrong.

[DaForce]

Frankly, he was never the right man at any point.


Everyone that voted for G.W. is getting exactly what they deserve, and should just keep their whining about the president to themselves. Unfortunately, the rest of us (that didn't vote for monkey-boy) have to pay for it as well.


I'm not trying to light fires in this thread, I'm just sick of hearing how "staunch Republicans" are now upset with the idiot they put in office for the 2nd term. As the old Baretta song used to say, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Frankly, he was never the right man at any point.


Everyone that voted for G.W. is getting exactly what they deserve, and should just keep their whining about the president to themselves. Unfortunately, the rest of us (that didn't vote for monkey-boy) have to pay for it as well.


I'm not trying to light fires in this thread, I'm just sick of hearing how "staunch Republicans" are now upset with the idiot they put in office for the 2nd term. As the old Baretta song used to say, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."

Right, it's OUR fault. How 'bout this? If there'd been an even remotely viable alternative to Bush, maybe he wouldn't have been elected? Seriously, the Democrats have themselves to blame for not fielding a candidate who wasn't a stiff in 2000 and 2004. Given the option of voting again in those elections, with the same candidates, I'd still vote for Bush even knowing what I know now. Why? Because neither Kerry nor Gore brought anything to the table.

My problem with the Bush presidency is that he didn't understand the realities of the Middle East (and some other realities, too). The Islamic nations are theocracies, and can't be approached and treated like Western nations, and nations whose political structures are independent of a religion. Bush didn't, and STILL doesn't understand that there are a lot of lingering resentments in the Islamic world over the treatment they've received at the hands of the West over the centuries. To them, we're still Crusaders, invading their space and defiling their cherished beliefs and faith. If Bush, or hopefully the next President figures that out, we'll be on the path to peace in the Middle East.

Bush, like others in government, hasn't moved past post WWII paranoia. This has caused us to react to global affairs with tunnel vision. Sure, Saddam was a dictator of the worst kind, and the Taliban was cruel and oppressive, but neither of them were any real threat to us or the West. It is ultimately up to the people who live in a country to change things if they don't like the status quo. If the people of Afghanistan and Iraq didn't have the desire or will to resist or remove their oppressive leadership, why should we even care what happens to them? Bringing us into the picture just perpetuates the Islamic notion that the West wants to force our way of life, and ultimately our religions, upon them.

Bush still thinks in terms of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, without realizing Iraq, Afghanistan, et al are not like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Invading these places did not make the people there feel more free or make them believe we're "helping" them. As far as they know, we bombed the crap out of them and then rolled in with troops and tanks. Saddam and the Taliban were more or less "comfortable" evils. The people probably understood them, and were willing to live with them, as at least their governments were consistent and offered the security of people knowing who their devil was.

You don't make friends with people by blowing up their neighborhoods. I mean, that is like a really big "D'uh" and I am completely stymied as to why our leadership can't grasp that.

[DaForce]

Right, it's OUR fault. How 'bout this? If there'd been an even remotely viable alternative to Bush, maybe he wouldn't have been elected? Seriously, the Democrats have themselves to blame for not fielding a candidate who....


Etc., etc., etc.



Same old tired retorts. "It's the Democrats fault!" Etc.


Dude, sorry but that crap didn't fly back when it was first flung a year ago, and it's not going to fly now.


You voted for the idiot, you live with the idiot's consequences.


If it makes you feel better that you didn't vote for [insert whomever's name here] instead of a guy with a history of fairly big mistakes during his first term, then I guess ignorance truly is bliss and I'd like to partake of whatever it is you're smoking.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Etc., etc., etc.



Same old tired retorts. "It's the Democrats fault!" Etc.


Dude, sorry but that crap didn't fly back when it was first flung a year ago, and it's not going to fly now.


You voted for the idiot, you live with the idiot's consequences.


If it makes you feel better that you didn't vote for [insert whomever's name here] instead of a guy with a history of fairly big mistakes during his first term, then I guess ignorance truly is bliss and I'd like to partake of whatever it is you're smoking.

I hate to destroy your illusion, but you're having to live with the consequences, too, not just we Republicans. Not voting for Bush didn't excuse you from any of the fallout, so when you say "you live with the idiot's consequences" you mean WE live with it. No offense, and I'm sorry about that! No matter who is at fault, we're stuck in the same boat.

My reference to the Democratic candidates was only to illustrate that I didn't feel I had any kind of real choice. I would be willing to bet that if Gore or Kerry had been elected President, we still would have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11.

I can't help but believe that if 9/11 had not happened, we wouldn't be in Iraq and Afghanistan now. We were attacked, and responded by retaliating against the targets of opportunity. Gore, Kerry, and any President would have, and should have, acted as Bush did.

However, we were hypocritical about our motives, and when you lie to people about something, it is hard to win trust. If Bush had said, simply, that we are going to attack Iraq and Afghanistan in response to the attack made on us, for the purpose of retaliating against SOMEONE, then we could have just done that, killed any and all that fit the profile of "enemy," and then left these countries to sort themselves out. I suspect America would at least have the respect of the world, if not the admiration.

It is the trumped up "weapons of mass destruction" and fiction of "Osama and al Qaeda are hiding in Afghanistan" that I feel has created the feeling in the world that America has turned into a nation bent on dominating the world. We more or less did the same sort of thing, with the same excuses, that Hitler used to invade Poland, and that the Soviet Union used when they rolled into Hungary and elsewhere.

When we stop ACTING like a tyrant, people will start having some respect for us again.

[DaForce]

Can I still partake in whatever the hell you're smoking?





:D

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Can I still partake in whatever the hell you're smoking?





:D

Of course you can. As a matter of fact, if some of our world leaders would do the same, maybe they would suddenly forget why they should bomb each other. Imagine Bush, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jung II, Tony Blair, and all the other leaders involved in fighting or threatening each other, sitting around the same table partaking of vitamin T:

Bush: Mr. bin Laden, America will not tolerate . . . one sec . . . suuuuuuccccckkkkkk . . . pause . . . exhale . . .cough, cough, . . . . any more, uh, more . . . uh . . . hey, Osama, did you watch Survivor last night? . . .

:)

[kah]

I think we should shorten the president's terms to two years. Why two years? Nothing can get done in that short amount of time, you say? Well, if the president is doing a good job, and isn't limited to 2 terms, then you would think he/she would work like hell to stay there. No last year of the second term bullshit either, knowing that the problem will be handed over to the next pres. Of course, these bloated campaigns will have to go away as well. 1996 Article:Financing Presidential Election Campaigns (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0996/ijde/alex.htm)
Numbers from 2004 Election
Finance
George W. Bush (R) $367,228,801 / 62,040,610 = $5.92 / vote
John Kerry (D) $326,236,288 / 59,028,111 = $5.52
Ralph Nader (i) $4,566,037 / 463,653 = $9.85
Michael Badnarik (L) $1,093,013 / 397,265 = $2.75
Michael Peroutka (C) $709,087 / 144,498 = $4.91
Source: FEC
If the president were to spend more time doing his job and less flying around trying to collect money and support, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I say make them campaign with flyers, emails, and televised debates. Cutting campaign costs would allow more people to run as well.

On the other subject, maybe people wouldn't hate us so much if we stopped acting like we were better than them. Bombing the shit out of a country, then turning around and rebuilding it, is like spanking a kid for kicking his puppy, then turning around and giving him a lollipop. The condescending parent/child act that goes on every time the US government feels the need to interfere, does not win us supporters.

[Queen Mae]

If the president were to spend more time doing his job and less flying around trying to collect money and support, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I say make them campaign with flyers, emails, and televised debates. Cutting campaign costs would allow more people to run as well.



I agree, this is how we end up with career politicians who are disconnected from the citizens of the U.S. The disconnect happens with both parties and one of them needs to stand up and say "We've screwed up, we were focusing on winning and not on leading." Admitting mistakes can take people a lot farther than covering them up.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Boy, Ralph Nader sure screwed himself. He spent WAY more for each vote he got than anyone else. And it got him nada.

[Adam54]

I think 22 is fine, and it'd be a beautiful, beautiful day if they expanded it to cover Congress as well. Why should Bush only be limited to two terms when equally shitty people like the late Tom DeLay and Bill Frist (just for two of my favorites, I know there's a ton of *******s on the left as well, so don't even give me that) can be elected to limitless terms?

That seems a bit hypocritical to me.