HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Let's repeal the 22nd ame...

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 07:51 PM

 

Let's repeal the 22nd amendment, or at least amend it (the term limit one)

starting immediately.

and if not repealing it, let's allow ALL presidents past and present, to return after say 10 or 15 years.


Especially as the founding fathers did not intend to have term limits and it was only done as a jealous act by the repubs, who instantly regretted doing it as Ike and Reagan could have possibly won 3rd terms.

(and so could Bill Clinton in 2000).


As we have IMHO the singular best president we are ever going to get from this day forward, and with people living longer, and all that.

While it is on the state level- we should do
Like Jerry Brown did as Governor, both the youngest and oldest, and the best governor of California ever.

16 replies, 1728 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:14 PM

1. No.

We need new blood in that office and 8 years is enough for anybody. Your examples are not that good. Yes probably Reagan and Ike could have won a third term but neither was in great health at the end. FDR died within a few months of being inaugurated. Clinton had heart issues which he apparently has got under control since he left office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:16 PM

2. I've a better idea, let's leave the 22nd amendment as is. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:17 PM

3. Excuse me, but the singular best President you're ever going to get is going to be me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:22 PM

4. If i were to change it, it'd be in a differnt direction

As in preventing family dynasties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:24 PM

6. I'd change it so you had to be poor or middle class in your life. No more born rich people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:47 PM

7. you mean as poor as Dick Cheney was as a child? as poor as the Clintons? Obama was poor.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:05 PM

11. You mean penalize all women, just because they happen to be married? That would be sexist.

 

and do you mean people like Al Gore, Jerry Brown, FDR, JFK, and of course RFK and Teddy Kennedy?

Why should Malia Obama be penalized for something her father did?

Why wouldn't you want Amy Carter to be free to choose her profession? What did Amy Carter ever do to you that you would want to ban her?

Where would you stop in banning people?

Why not then just annoint that person you actually would want?
Once you start banning people from being President, might as well have a King or Queen or dictator because the people are not free to choose.

If you remember, Bill and Hillary had zero dollars and never even owned a home until after they left the White House.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:58 AM

13. That hyperbolic display reduces no epistemic resistance because

mostly its a fantasy of your clearly plentiful projective proclivities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:11 AM

14. so who specifically would you ban?

 

as Sondheim almost wrote
don't bother it's clear

all actually only means 2

meanwhile, I hereby start the
Michelle Obama for President
to procede within two years after she is senator from somewhere

we need continuation not inanity from the extremists on either side who want to go back to the Bush's, though they don't realize that is what they are doing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:24 PM

5. I think instead of two four year terms it should be one six year term.

Because most presidents spend their first term running for the second - eliminating that option would have them focus more on the issues rather than their campaign. There should also be strict term limits imposed for House and Senate members as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:48 PM

8. term limits don't get rid of the problems you are probably thinking of

 

one ten year term perhaps,as they are now allowed ten years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:03 PM

10. +1

A 6 year term for president may be the only good idea the Confederacy implemented.

Lawrence Lessig has argued that term limits for congress may be the only way to change the corruption in Washington. This system has gotten to the point where it is itself corrupt, and not just suffering from corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:05 PM

12. That's what the Confederacy did.

 

No, seriously:

Constitution of the Confederate States of America

Article 2. - The Executive Branch

Section 1 - The President

1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible...


http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:50 PM

9. No way

The thing about stuff like this is you don't only open the door for people you like. You open it for people you couldn't stand being president again. I know W is so unpopular it's unlikely he could be re-elected, but we don't know who will be elected in the future. I don't think it's a good idea.

Also, I don't like the idea of every single term being taken up by a re-election campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:11 AM

15. I think we should move to a single 5-year term for president.

No re-election B.S., more time for meaningful leadership, but not too long that future Dubyas get 8 years to fuck us all to hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:14 AM

16. Why? Jeb is running in 2016, that would make the 4th term of a Bush. So the argument is not valid

 

and if you can run again, it takes away lame duckness

let the people decide

if fatigue sets in, then they won't be voted in

because all the other ways lead to power brokering anyhow so it's all the same.

If people are free, then they are free to say MORE or free to say NO MORE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread