Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should we repeal the 22nd Amendment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:02 PM
Original message
Poll question: Should we repeal the 22nd Amendment?
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.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RDANGELO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes , and also the cloture(60 votes) rule in the senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. The Senate makes its own rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. That is strictly a matter of US Senate rules
Law doesn't have anything to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
38. That can easily be dumped by Democrats anytime by using the "nuclear option"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sounds good to me!
If someone's doing a great job, why should they get kicked out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. REPEAL. I've never supported it. We NEVER would have had GWB if no 22nd amendment. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. Maybe Reagan would still be president, and there would of been no Clinton...
With his body hooked up to a breathing machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, but just to freak out the freepers, birthers, bigots, and rapturists that make up today's GOP.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. You'd have to set a future date for it to take effect. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Ok, it can go into affect after 2012.
Should be good for a lot of laughs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. Why not?
It'll give the Rushpublicans something to blubber (no pun intended) about for the next eight years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Hutt is a fearmongering idiot..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
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_2...

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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. Yes. We ought to have the option of voting the same people in
if we want to. The amendment simply removes that option.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rvablue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoadRage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #15
48. "The rule is here for a reason"
What if the reason is simply that 1950's Republicans didn't like FDR's legacy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. NO!
I am all for term limits. Think there should be limits in the House and Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
17. I'm with President Bartlet on this one
Edited on Tue Jun-30-09 02:04 PM by Hippo_Tron
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I have all seven seasons and probably watch4 or five episodes a week
The show was incomprably written, and the cast was great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
40. I have all 7 as well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #18
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #20
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. This is a "family friendly forum"?
Fuck, I didn't know that. I would have curtailed my blowjob jokes.

Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
22. Not for Obama
If it's done, it should be for the next president. It probably shouldn't be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last_texas_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #22
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
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... :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek_sabre Donating Member (619 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
25. No
I also support term limits for the house and the senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
namecallerholic Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
26. Why? So you can further increase the power of corporate lobbyists over the government?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
31. President-For-Life George W Bush
I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #31
50. how do you think 2008 would have turned out
if it had been Bush vs Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
32. Sad to see almost 1/3 of us are damned fools who fail to learn from history
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
37. I'd say yes, but imagine how much fraud would we see from presidents
not wanting to get out of office...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #37
51. was this a big problem
between 1789 and 1952?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
39. I like the Obamas too much...
.... to make them endure more than 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #41
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
43. And we should get ALL Democratic state legislatures in "Red" states
Edited on Wed Jul-01-09 03:33 AM by Ken Burch
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midwestern Democrat Donating Member (238 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
44. Yes - I don't believe in term limits. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
45. No. By then it will be time for Barack to step aside...
...for Michelle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
47. Hell no! Reagan would still be president Weekend at Bernie's style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 13th 2014, 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC