NationStates Jolt Archive

So here in the US, a president may run for re-election after his first four years have been served (qualifying as one presidential term).

After FDR, a president was limited to two (2) terms to run for office. For the sake of placing another check on Federal power, I believe we should limit a president to one, and only one (1) four-year term in office

Sure, what the hell. Very few things are so dangerous that they can't be tried.

what's the logic on this one? Why should the president be checked?

No, I think it should be 1 five-year term, but you can run again after someone has taken your place for 1 term.

I disagree; I think 2 years is fine. You did not even make an argument of why there should be only one term. In addition, you make it sound like the 2-term thing was been abused countless times, which obviously is not the case. Why check this federal power?

I second the shoes. Checks and balances are there to prevent abuse. If something is not being abused and it's hard to see how it could be, why place checks and balances on it, especially when they could get in the way?

granted, limitng a president to 1 4 year term would eliminate all the great presidents running agian, it would also eliminate the chance for any presidents like Bush to run again as well. I sort of agree that it should be 1 term and only 4 years. Honestly we have to put up with Bush for another... 3 or 4 years. So I'm half and half. I'd love Clinton to run again, but with the idiocy of the majority of the populace and the fact we used computers for a lot of the votes.....I'd rather have another check.

So here in the US, a president may run for re-election after his first four years have been served (qualifying as one presidential term).

After FDR, a president was limited to two (2) terms to run for office. For the sake of placing another check on Federal power, I believe we should limit a president to one, and only one (1) four-year term in office

The Confederate States of America had a Constitution that limited a President to one term, except that presidential terms were six years instead of four.

So here in the US, a president may run for re-election after his first four years have been served (qualifying as one presidential term).

After FDR, a president was limited to two (2) terms to run for office. For the sake of placing another check on Federal power, I believe we should limit a president to one, and only one (1) four-year term in office


how would that place another check on the power of the federal branch?

Well, perhaps we could middle-road it. Since the 2 term limit is on consecutive terms, not total terms...we could install a new limit on consecutive terms and remove the limit on total terms?

This way people can have good leaders multiple times, but make sure that there are no presidents who are "unaccountable" due to their position as a "2nd term" president.

Could be workable. But there'd be a healthy body of evidence to show how the 2nd term is being abused.

No, I think it should be 1 five-year term, but you can run again after someone has taken your place for 1 term.
i like this idea best because it mitigates the 'lame duck syndrome' that would plague all one term only presidents.

and it would allow a really good president to serve again.

Before delving into such a trivial subject since there are arguably already adequate term limits on the president, we should place term limits on representatives and senators. I for one propose a limit of 6 terms in the House (i.e. 12 years) and 3 terms in the Senate (i.e. 18 years).

Before delving into such a trivial subject since there are arguably already adequate term limits on the president, we should place term limits on representatives and senators. I for one propose a limit of 6 terms in the House (i.e. 12 years) and 3 terms in the Senate (i.e. 18 years).

Now that's a good idea :D

Before delving into such a trivial subject since there are arguably already adequate term limits on the president, we should place term limits on representatives and senators. I for one propose a limit of 6 terms in the House (i.e. 12 years) and 3 terms in the Senate (i.e. 18 years).Now that's a good idea. :D I agree. Checks and balances are very important. And I think that for the President the current term limits are fine, just make him/her be elected by compulsory popular vote. The main problem of no term limits is voter apathy.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I think the limit should only extend to consecutive terms. Some presidents should havve been limited to 1 term. It woiuld have been great to keep some others in office for 4 or 5 terms. compromise.

I actually think the limit should just be placed on Bush himself. But what the hell.

I like it the way it is. Only problem with it is that you get leaders that 50 million people don't like in power for an extra term.

Well that's democracy and ignorance for you.

No, but house and senate terms should be limited to 2 terms.

The term-limit should be rid completely. Its democracy, or so we say(republicanism doesn't really clash with this part), so if the majority keep voting for one man, he should stay.

There is one reason, and one reason only why Congress term limits are not in place-No Congressman wants to give up power. Why would they? They are guarenteed a lifelong sit on the Congress seat unless they really screw up, and I mean REALLY screw up. Want to know why? One thing, really.

Congressmen(and women) have complete, and more importantly free to them access to print and press for campaign material, all on the taxpayer dime. They don't ahve to pay a cent. This is the single strongest tool for re election, and why most incumbents are reelected. They could put out billions, and it would be perfectly legal.

Basically, Congressmen are not willing to give up any power, regardless of how much it hurts the american taxpayer(It's a real blow, alright).

Should US presidential term limits be dropped to one four-year term?

No, I think the two-term rule works well as it is.