NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. Two terms is quite enough for any President.

I also think it's ridiculous that they're talking about Obama having a third term when he hasn't even started his first.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/14/three-terms-for-barack-obama/?icid=200100397x1217182314x1201144246

More blasphemy from ASD. You're not allowed to criticize Obama here. He should automatically get lifetime appointment to the Presidency!

LOL. They want to eat the cheese before milking the cow. I'm not that sure that Obama will have a second, much less a third.

A bad idea with out doubt.

Get rid of it. Let the people vote for who they want as president. It's that democracy thingy.

Why have term limits? In case a guy is so good people want to vote for him more than twice? Terrible situation that.

Are you fucking kidding me? Really? Even Bush's goons didnt try this in the interest of "not changing leadrship during time of national crisis".

God fucking damn.

Are you fucking kidding me? Really? Even Bush's goons didnt try this in the interest of "not changing leadrship during time of national crisis".

God fucking damn.

More blasphemy. Didn't you vote for Obama?

Stick with two terms. I know that you're trying to say "Let's give Obama a third term!", but you're coming off as "Let's give Dubya a third term!".

More blasphemy. Didn't you vote for Obama?

I did. But he isnt even in office yet. Who knows if Ill even vote for him the second time. Im not above voting third party.

Stupid idea.

But one Representative from New York with a dumb idea does not a significant movement (or even discussion) make. :wink:

Stupid idea.

But one Representative from New York with a dumb idea does not a significant movement (or even discussion) make. :wink:

No, but this will just further convince certian members on the right that Obama has a large personality cult.

Which amuses me.

No, but this will just further convince certian members on the right that Obama has a large personality cult.

Which amuses me.

I can't be any further convinced - the needle is all the way over already.

Also, apparently this is an ongoing effort by Rep. Serrano. He introduced the same bill in 2003. link (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/13/hope-and-change-move-to-repeal-presidential-term-limits-started/)

No. This change goes against change in presidents which is against the change Obama stood for. We cannot allow this change.

Someone explain to me why everyone likes term limits?

Someone explain to me why everyone likes term limits?

This particular one serves a double purpose. It protects our republic by ensuring that a single human being never keeps the high level of power the President wields for too long. And it protects the individual Presidents by ensuring they need endure the toughest, most stressful job on earth for no more than eleven years.

Someone explain to me why everyone likes term limits?

Well, it goes back to Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected to 4 terms in office from the period during The Great Depression all the way to near the end of World War 2.

Republicans pushed for the 22nd Amendment, which meant they shot themselves in the foot when Ronnie Raygun was at the peak of his popularity.

The same people who bitch about the idea of Obama getting more than 2 would likely be the same people who wouldn't blink at giving the same for Dear Leader.

Someone explain to me why everyone likes term limits?

Apparently letting one person have so much power for too long is bad. 4-8 years is a reasonable amount of time for them to actually achieve something, but not so long that they're becoming a dictator for life or some such.

Which does raise the question as to why it's only the president with this term limit, doesn't every other position in the government wield power too?

Apparently letting one person have so much power for too long is bad. 4-8 years is a reasonable amount of time for them to actually achieve something, but not so long that they're becoming a dictator for life or some such.

Which does raise the question as to why it's only the president with this term limit, doesn't every other position in the government wield power too?

But nowhere near as much. A Congressman can only act with the assistance of other congressmen - the Prez can do things entirely on his own.

More blasphemy from ASD. You're not allowed to criticize Obama here. He should automatically get lifetime appointment to the Presidency!

More blasphemy. Didn't you vote for Obama?

Troll is trolling.

Also, apparently this is an ongoing effort by Rep. Serrano. He introduced the same bill in 2003. link (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/13/hope-and-change-move-to-repeal-presidential-term-limits-started/)

THIS, ffs. ^

Get rid of it. Let the people vote for who they want as president. It's that democracy thingy.

Why have term limits? In case a guy is so good people want to vote for him more than twice? Terrible situation that.

Have you ever watched Star Wars? The Chancellor/Emperor bring back memories?

Anyway, the main cause of term limitations was to prevent the onslaught of a tyrrany by the monarchy/ tyrrany by the majority, an example is that we didn't like being ruled under a king who served for life. (1776)

I did. But he isnt even in office yet. Who knows if Ill even vote for him the second time. Im not above voting third party.

KoL voting moderate....whoda thunk it?


Republicans pushed for the 22nd Amendment, which meant they shot themselves in the foot with Ronnie Raygun was at the peak of his popularity.

The same people who bitch about the idea of Obama getting more than 2 would likely be the same people who wouldn't blink at doing the same for Dear Leader.

And how did they shoot themselves in the foot if they didn't push to repeal the ammendment? Sounds like they were okay with him leaving office, Regan may have been a 'god like Republican' but they wouldn't have him run for another term, or they would have asked about changing the ammendment.

And why shouldn't we bitch about this? This is before this guy is even freakin sworn in! And we are already talking about term extensions?

The two term limit was initially a tradition, if I remember correctly. Washington has only served two terms and those who followed, followed his lead; Roosevelt was the exception.

Which does raise the question as to why it's only the president with this term limit, doesn't every other position in the government wield power too?

Because Congress would never approve it, they are fine limiting the presidents' power, but can't resist letting theirs run amock.

Because Congress would never approve it, they are fine limiting the presidents' power, but can't resist letting theirs run amock.

But what about the vice president, or the secretaries of whatever?

This particular one serves a double purpose. It protects our republic by ensuring that a single human being never keeps the high level of power the President wields for too long.
From what? There's nothing a President can do in his third term he couldn't do in the first two.


And it protects the individual Presidents by ensuring they need endure the toughest, most stressful job on earth for no more than eleven years.
If they feel up to it and want to run then...

KoL voting moderate....whoda thunk it?


Moderate? HAH! Id only not vote for Obama if he turns out to be too moderate. The third parties Id vote for would be green or socialist:p

Have you ever watched Star Wars? The Chancellor/Emperor bring back memories?
Y'know, I don't think that was down to him being elected too many terms. I can see a strong argument for term length limits, but not term limits.


Anyway, the main cause of term limitations was to prevent the onslaught of a tyrrany by the monarchy/ tyrrany by the majority, an example is that we didn't like being ruled under a king who served for life. (1776)
1776 was about taxes rather than anti-monarchy. And by the way that the rule is the 22nd amendment, it seems you the US survives for a fair while without term limits.




And why shouldn't we bitch about this? This is before this guy is even freakin sworn in! And we are already talking about term extensions?

Talking about letting the people vote on whether or not they want a President to serve a third term? Oh the democratic horror.

And why shouldn't we bitch about this? This is before this guy is even freakin sworn in! And we are already talking about term extensions?

The guy proposing this also proposed it back in 2003.

From what? There's nothing a President can do in his third term he couldn't do in the first two.


If they feel up to it and want to run then...

The longer a President stays in the more influence he can have. He can appoint more judges (particularly to the supreme court) and get more of "his people" into the bureaucracy, and perhaps even the military.

And, maybe they think they can handle it - and are wrong. Better not to risk having an overstressed, semi-invalid in charge.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" There is a reason for those term limits

Someone introduces the same damn thing every election cycle. It's not something that only just happened now with Obama. In fact, the last one was introduced almost exactly four years ago, H. J. Res. 24.

But what about the vice president, or the secretaries of whatever?

They are appointed by the president.

Moderate? HAH! Id only not vote for Obama if he turns out to be too moderate. The third parties Id vote for would be green or socialist:p

Lol albino blacksheep had Nader dancing with trees. :tongue:

Y'know, I don't think that was down to him being elected too many terms. I can see a strong argument for term length limits, but not term limits.

The Galactic Senate was so 'wowed' by him that they kept electing him, giving him more powers, and allowing him to violate the rules by staying in office way past his length that he could serve.


1776 was about taxes rather than anti-monarchy. And by the way that the rule is the 22nd amendment, it seems you the US survives for a fair while without term limits.
I’m talking about why we rebelled and then installed the 'not so super' Articles of Confederation. When we scraped them, we were afraid of having a president with too much power, so we made term limits. Washington set the standard of 2, but FDR was so popular that he ran for 4 terms, exceeding the traditional limit.


Talking about letting the people vote on whether or not they want a President to serve a third term? Oh the democratic horror.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

In other words, if someone is elected for too long, it starts to become less like an election and more like corruption. If we abolished the 22nd amendment, what prevents a powerful, charismatic president from saying "if you don't elect me, the Army, CIA, and FBI will be after you."? After all, the president is in charge of all of these agencies and districts, if he had goons in these departments who would back him, then what can we do? The 'President' would then be blackmailing the nation. And who is to say Congress would stop them, it is bloated enough to a point where it has an incumbency rating of 99%.

You are assuming that democracy is a hard form of government, but in fact, it is quite fragile. It relies on the will, the voice, of the people; if the people become lazy and ignorant, then the system will downturn until it becomes absolutism.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" There is a reason for those term limits
Bollocks. Plenty of Presidents were no less capable in the 4 years after they left than during their second term.

The longer a President stays in the more influence he can have. He can appoint more judges (particularly to the supreme court) and get more of "his people" into the bureaucracy, and perhaps even the military.
Most of that he could do already. I buy there's a greater level of potential influence that comes with longevity, but the anti-democraticness feels wrong to me.


And, maybe they think they can handle it - and are wrong. Better not to risk having an overstressed, semi-invalid in charge.

*cough*Mccain*cough*

Applies equally to a second term, or a first term for that matter.

Someone introduces the same damn thing every election cycle. It's not something that only just happened now with Obama. In fact, the last one was introduced almost exactly four years ago, H. J. Res. 24.

The guy proposing this also proposed it back in 2003.

Then this guy can just pack up and move to North Korea for all I care, heck, even Cuba, its closer. I don't care who it is, the 22nd Ammendment shouldn't be abolished, no matter how much he presses on this.

If we abolished the 22nd amendment, what prevents a powerful, charismatic president from saying "if you don't elect me, the Army, CIA, and FBI will be after you."? After all, the president is in charge of all of these agencies and districts, if he had goons in these departments who would back him, then what can we do? The 'President' would then be blackmailing the nation.

this is just stupid. what, exactly, stops them from doing this after one term? how would any constitution be able to stop this at all?

Then this guy can just pack up and move to North Korea for all I care, heck, even Cuba, its closer. I don't care who it is, the 22nd Ammendment shouldn't be abolished, no matter how much he presses on this.

yeah, how dare the democratically elected representative fulfil his duties by lobbying for changes in the government he feels are necessary?

That bastard

Most of that he could do already. I buy there's a greater level of potential influence that comes with longevity, but the anti-democraticness feels wrong to me.


To much democracy can create tyrrany, like I said, democracy is a highly fragile form of goverment. So fragile, that if it were a vase, just a wipe with a Swiffer Duster would make it shatter into a million, billion pieces.

They are appointed by the president.
If they can act independently of the president then doesn't the same principle apply? They could, in theory, stay in office for more than two terms.



The Galactic Senate was so 'wowed' by him that they kept electing him, giving him more powers, and allowing him to violate the rules by staying in office way past his length that he could serve.
I thought the idea was that they gave him "emergency powers" and he never gave them back?


I’m talking about why we rebelled and then installed the 'not so super' Articles of Confederation. When we scraped them, we were afraid of having a president with too much power, so we made term limits. Washington set the standard of 2, but FDR was so popular that he ran for 4 terms, exceeding the traditional limit.
Establishing a tradition isn't setting a limit.



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

In other words, if someone is elected for too long, it starts to become less like an election and more like corruption. If we abolished the 22nd amendment, what prevents a powerful, charismatic president from saying "if you don't elect me, the Army, CIA, and FBI will be after you."?
What's to stop a president doing that after his first term? Threat of impeachment?
After all, the president is in charge of all of these agencies and districts, if he had goons in these departments who would back him, then what can we do?
What can you do now?
The 'President' would then be blackmailing the nation. And who is to say Congress would stop them, it is bloated enough to a point where it has an incumbency rating of 99%.
So why aren't presidents blackmailing the nation now to ensure themselves two terms?

You are assuming that democracy is a hard form of government, but in fact, it is quite fragile. It relies on the will, the voice, of the people; if the people become lazy and ignorant, then the system will downturn until it becomes absolutism.

What now?

Britain- no term limits, never had a dictator,which is more significant because it's easier for a fused executive/legislature to become a dictatorship. If it doesn't happen in hundreds of years for us then why would it happen in America?

In other words, if someone is elected for too long, it starts to become less like an election and more like corruption. If we abolished the 22nd amendment, what prevents a powerful, charismatic president from saying "if you don't elect me, the Army, CIA, and FBI will be after you."?

What makes you think the 22nd amendment will be any impediment to a person who would have made it quite clear he has no concern for the other 26?

It's a nonsensical argument, that assumes that someone who essentially is willing to destroy the framework of our democratic society is going to go "drat, they found my ONE WEAKNESS, the number twenty two!"

Most of that he could do already. I buy there's a greater level of potential influence that comes with longevity, but the anti-democraticness feels wrong to me.


Democracy is only good and desirable because it is the institution which tends to work best. It shouldn't be viewed as some untouchable system just because it is good. If we adhere to democracy when it is less functional than some other way of doing things than we defeat the purpose. We should discuss what will have the best results, not what is more "democratic". Unless it is serving us an institution is worthless.

The rest of the world needs you to keep it. I mean you managed to elect Dubya twice, can we trust you not to do something as stupid three times?

yeah, how dare the democratically elected representative fulfil his duties by lobbying for changes in the government he feels are necessary?

That bastard

Okay, maybe I flamed, but still, how would he like to live in a place where a president is 'elected' again, and again, and again? Venezuela? China? North Korea? Cuba?

this is just stupid. what, exactly, stops them from doing this after one term? how would any constitution be able to stop this at all?

The influence that they would have gained in a period of 1 election can hardly call for immediate overturn of a constitution, the main changes in goverment would have to be if the person constantly won election after election. Granted, the theory is farfetched, but it is not entirely illogical, it can happen.

The rest of the world needs you to keep it. I mean you managed to elect Dubya twice, can we trust you not to do something as stupid three times?

Bush would have lost to Obama even more resoundingly than McCain did.

The Galactic Senate was so 'wowed' by him that they kept electing him, giving him more powers, and allowing him to violate the rules by staying in office way past his length that he could serve.

I bow to your greater Star Wars knowledge. On the other hand, any system is open to abuse, particularly one where the top guy can do mind tricks and shoot lightning.


I’m talking about why we rebelled and then installed the 'not so super' Articles of Confederation. When we scraped them, we were afraid of having a president with too much power, so we made term limits. Washington set the standard of 2, but FDR was so popular that he ran for 4 terms, exceeding the traditional limit.
Yes, you rebelled mainly on tax reasons. Constitutional theory was down the list somewhere. If the founding fathers considered it so important as you claim, why leave it as a convention rather than a legal requirement?



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

In other words, if someone is elected for too long, it starts to become less like an election and more like corruption. If we abolished the 22nd amendment, what prevents a powerful, charismatic president from saying "if you don't elect me, the Army, CIA, and FBI will be after you."? After all, the president is in charge of all of these agencies and districts, if he had goons in these departments who would back him, then what can we do? The 'President' would then be blackmailing the nation. And who is to say Congress would stop them, it is bloated enough to a point where it has an incumbency rating of 99%.

Let's see. Number of Presidents who had more than two terms: 1. Number of Presidents who did as you suggest: 0. There's as much to stop them doing it in their later terms as in their early terms. There is after all no limits on how many appointments a president can make.


You are assuming that democracy is a hard form of government, but in fact, it is quite fragile. It relies on the will, the voice, of the people; if the people become lazy and ignorant, then the system will downturn until it becomes absolutism.
You don't find this assertion at odds with restricting who the people may vote for as their president?

In other words, if someone is elected for too long, it starts to become less like an election and more like corruption. If we abolished the 22nd amendment, what prevents a powerful, charismatic president from saying "if you don't elect me, the Army, CIA, and FBI will be after you."? After all, the president is in charge of all of these agencies and districts, if he had goons in these departments who would back him, then what can we do? The 'President' would then be blackmailing the nation. And who is to say Congress would stop them, it is bloated enough to a point where it has an incumbency rating of 99%.

I don't see that as a problem. A president with that mindset could do that after his FIRST term. A more credible problem is that a very long-term leader will have people who vote for him just because they're used to the bum. The incumbent has advantages in elections anyway. I don't know if anyone has beaten an incumbent of the same party, and even in the general election, the incumbent is likely to win, unless the economy goes flooey (Carter, Papa Bush). Even Bush Jr got two terms, and probably would have gotten a third, if legal, without our econ woes.

If they can act independently of the president then doesn't the same principle apply? They could, in theory, stay in office for more than two terms.

Thank you for clearing that up.

I thought the idea was that they gave him "emergency powers" and he never gave them back?

He had influence over many of the senators and the courts, it says so in both the books and the movies.

Establishing a tradition isn't setting a limit.

Quite true, most of the former presidents didn't want to upset the balance by going over and then having people cry "he stepped over the line! Tyrrany! Tyrrany!"

What's to stop a president doing that after his first term? Threat of impeachment?

Exaclty, has a president ever had any sort of influence over fellow congressman during his first term of office? Has he had enough to corrupt their opionions?

What can you do now?

Vote freely.

So why aren't presidents blackmailing the nation now to ensure themselves two terms?

Which presidents have had the influence to ensure themselves 2 terms by blackmail? And besides, wouldn't it be stupid to do that only to figure out, "drat, I can only serve 2 terms, what a waste of my time".

What now?

*Sigh*

Democracy is fragile, it depends on the people (draws squigglies on board), if the common people are easily pursuaded, become ignorant, or are too lazy to participate in goverment, then the goverment will ultimately fail. The people would then become more and more reliant on their leaders, by giving them the power, it takes away the most thought of concept of democracy by having the 'consent of the governed', meaning the people.

Even Bush Jr got two terms, and probably would have gotten a third, if legal

mr 23%?

Quite true, most of the former presidents didn't want to upset the balance by going over and then having people cry "he stepped over the line! Tyrrany! Tyrrany!"
And then the people decided they wanted to elect FDR anyway.


Exaclty, has a president ever had any sort of influence over fellow congressman during his first term of office? Has he had enough to corrupt their opionions?
Yes


Vote freely.

There are at least two people you are not allowed to vote for as President. So not freely.



Democracy is fragile, it depends on the people (draws squigglies on board), if the common people are easily pursuaded, become ignorant, or are too lazy to participate in goverment, then the goverment will ultimately fail. The people would then become more and more reliant on their leaders, by giving them the power, it takes away the most thought of concept of democracy by having the 'consent of the governed', meaning the people.
This has what to do with anything? It is term limits that reduce the consent of the governed, since you're not asking "who do you want to be President?" but "who do you want who isn't that guy, or that guy, etc"

I bow to your greater Star Wars knowledge. On the other hand, any system is open to abuse, particularly one where the top guy can do mind tricks and shoot lightning.

You don't need mind tricks or lightning to abuse the system. Though it does help if you're more eloquent than Jar-Jar Binks.

A more credible problem is that a very long-term leader will have people who vote for him just because they're used to the bum. The incumbent has advantages in elections anyway. I don't know if anyone has beaten an incumbent of the same party, and even in the general election, the incumbent is likely to win, unless the economy goes flooey (Carter, Papa Bush). Even Bush Jr got two terms, and probably would have gotten a third, if legal, without our econ woes.

The credible problem that you are talking about is called when people get 'lazy democracy syndrome'.

And yes, the incumbent does get a slight edge, unless of course, the economy comes into play, when that happens, power usually shifts to the opposite canidate.

I bow to your greater Star Wars knowledge. On the other hand, any system is open to abuse, particularly one where the top guy can do mind tricks and shoot lightning.

LoL true. :p


You don't find this assertion at odds with restricting who the people may vote for as their president?

Who is to say that the minds and the voice of the people can't become corrupt?

i like the term limits thing

but i would be willing to consider changing it to not serving for more than 2 consecutive terms so that a person could get a 3rd term after a 4 year break.

Bush would have lost to Obama even more resoundingly than McCain did.

Obama didn't necessarily have to come along.

And then the people decided they wanted to elect FDR anyway.

Quite so, FDR was cautious when doing this, but the people didn't want him to go because of the crisis of WW2.


There are at least two people you are not allowed to vote for as President. So not freely.

And those would be?



This has what to do with anything? It is term limits that reduce the consent of the governed, since you're not asking "who do you want to be President?" but "who do you want who isn't that guy, or that guy, etc"

Again, by becoming ignorant, lazy, corrupt, or just plain stupid, we are more able to loose our freedoms than gaining it. If we just assume that we elect a leader that says "I will take care of it", without knowing what we are doing, we would be giving our power to a person with a more powerful position. The 'power' gained by having such a position is addictive, and hard to give up. What would prevent a president from stepping down?

Who is to say that the minds and the voice of the people can't become corrupt?

Nothing, but you pretty much have to rely on them in a democracy.

Note there is such a thing as electoral elastic. The longer a head serves the more the buck comes back to him, so unless things are really good they get offed sooner or later. No British PM has done more than three terms I believe. Even without term limits.

Quite so, FDR was cautious when doing this, but the people didn't want him to go because of the crisis of WW2.

The will of the people spoke, how wonderful.


And those would be?

George W. Bush, Bill Clinton



Again, by becoming ignorant, lazy, corrupt, or just plain stupid, we are more able to loose our freedoms than gaining it. If we just assume that we elect a leader that says "I will take care of it", without knowing what we are doing, we would be giving our power to a person with a more powerful position. The 'power' gained by having such a position is addictive, and hard to give up. What would prevent a president from stepping down?
I don't think this applies necessarily to third terms. Most Presidents are elected on a stance of "I'll take care of it".

Nothing, but you pretty much have to rely on them in a democracy.

Note there is such a thing as electoral elastic. The longer a head serves the more the buck comes back to him, so unless things are really good they get offed sooner or later. No British PM has done more than three terms I believe. Even without term limits.

And what if that reliance fades? What if we just say "oh, that fancy speaking guy over there can take care of it"?

As for the electoral elastic, what if that person does a good job?

Nothing, but you pretty much have to rely on them in a democracy.

Only to an extent. You can still have safety nets (like maximum turn limits) to minimize the damage from that.

And what if that reliance fades? What if we just say "oh, that fancy speaking guy over there can take care of it"?

As for the electoral elastic, what if that person does a good job?

You're arguing that a president shouldn't be allowed to go for a third term because he might have done well enough in his first two that people want him back?

In practice there's always something wrong.

The will of the people spoke, how wonderful.

Yes, quite in the middle of a World War.

George W. Bush, Bill Clinton

Why would I care to vote for them? Both are incompetent.

I don't think this applies necessarily to third terms. Most Presidents are elected on a stance of "I'll take care of it".

What about 4th terms? 5th? 10th?

Actually, Ulysses Grant, Harry Truman, and Theodore Roosevelt tried to get a third term; none of them survived the primaries.

Only to an extent. You can still have safety nets (like maximum turn limits) to minimize the damage from that.

To minimise the danger of the people electing who they want to elect. There's no more danger of people electing a guy who's evil to a third term than to his first two. Less even, if they've had 8 years and the reaction is 'hey life is great lets keep things going for another 4 years' why wouldn't you want the president to be re-elected?

You're arguing that a president shouldn't be allowed to go for a third term because he might have done well enough in his first two that people want him back?

In practice there's always something wrong.

Im combining these two to say that you have just simply contradicted yourself. If the person had served 2 terms, what is to say that the electoral elastic won't come back to hit them? Most of our presidents usually wern't popular enough to even serve a third term even if they wanted to run, which is why they served 2. FDR is an exception.

Yes, quite in the middle of a World War.
So?


Why would I care to vote for them? Both are incompetent.

Other people might well disagree. I'm sure many would prefer either to GWB.


What about 4th terms? 5th? 10th?
Unlikely in practice. But if you get a guy who's running things well enough that people want him back, why throw him out for being good?

To minimise the danger of the people electing who they want to elect. There's no more danger of people electing a guy who's evil to a third term than to his first two. Less even, if they've had 8 years and the reaction is 'hey life is great lets keep things going for another 4 years' why wouldn't you want the president to be re-elected?

Yes, but if you keep electing him, who is to say that he will not become corrupt?

You are only talking about if a person served a 3rd term, what if the period of terms goes beyond that? This is about repelling the 22nd Ammendment, not extending the term limit.

Besides, 2 terms is enough for any president, have any of our modern day presidents (Post WW2), been popular enough to run for a 3rd term anyway?

Im combining these two to say that you have just simply contradicted yourself. If the person had served 2 terms, what is to say that the electoral elastic won't come back to hit them? Most of our presidents usually wern't popular enough to even serve a third term even if they wanted to run, which is why they served 2. FDR is an exception.

Nothing. Usually it does. Sometimes it doesn't. If they've managed to do well enough that it hasn't then good for them. My point about electoral elastic was to do with the idea of 8,9,10 terms being hugely unlikely (aside from the ages issues that would make it unlikely).

Unlikely in practice. But if you get a guy who's running things well enough that people want him back, why throw him out for being good?

Because his term is up, it is why we don't have a president for life.

Yes, but if you keep electing him, who is to say that he will not become corrupt?

the people

Yes, but if you keep electing him, who is to say that he will not become corrupt?
As much to say that he wasn't corrupt to begin with.


You are only talking about if a person served a 3rd term, what if the period of terms goes beyond that? This is about repelling the 22nd Ammendment, not extending the term limit.
Extrapolate what I've said to include it. If you've had 12 good years of sailing you don't throw the helmsman overboard.


Besides, 2 terms is enough for any president, have any of our modern day presidents (Post WW2), been popular enough to run for a 3rd term anyway?
Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, Reagan left with 64.


Because his term is up, it is why we don't have a president for life.
That's not an argument.

the people

What if the people are corrupt?

As much to say that he wasn't corrupt to begin with.

"Power corrupts", eventually, they will become corrupt, unless they are one honest to god man.

Extrapolate what I've said to include it. If you've had 12 good years of sailing you don't throw the helmsman overboard.

If there contracts were up, then yes, its time to find a new helmsman.

Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, Reagan left with 64%.


Who is to say that their opponents would have been more popular?

What if the people are corrupt?

then there isn't much to do, is there?

Regardless of which side of the aisle this would primarily benefit or hurt, I am adamantly in favour of term limits. Frankly, the American people are too dumb to vote out an idiot.

Actually, when I did an interview (http://hoyer.house.gov/Newsroom/index.asp?ID=772&DocumentType=Article) with now-House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) back in 2006, this issue came up then. He's sponsored such legislation pretty much since he started in the House. And he sponsored it even while Dubass was in office.

Can anyone think of a political leader anywhere in the world who was a good and effective leader for longer than 8 years or so?

Okay, maybe I flamed, but still, how would he like to live in a place where a president is 'elected' again, and again, and again? Venezuela? China? North Korea? Cuba?
What makes you think that removing the 22nd would change anything about how elections are held? You seem to have this notion that if someone is in power for more than two terms they can't be removed.



The influence that they would have gained in a period of 1 election can hardly call for immediate overturn of a constitution, the main changes in goverment would have to be if the person constantly won election after election. Granted, the theory is farfetched, but it is not entirely illogical, it can happen.

So then where are the term limits for congressmen and senators? They could, in theory, command significant influence if left in power for two long. One congressman could come to control many.

Can anyone think of a political leader anywhere in the world who was a good and effective leader for longer than 8 years or so?
Depends on your perspective. I know many people who'd say Thatcher, others that would say Blair and so on.

What if the people are corrupt?

You're buggered anyway.


"Power corrupts", eventually, they will become corrupt, unless they are one honest to god man.
It's a proverb, not a universal law.


If there contracts were up, then yes, its time to find a new helmsman.

Why not re-hire the guy who did a good job?


Who is to say that their opponents would have been more popular?
It's impossible to say definitively obviously. But both would've had a fair shot at re-election I think it's fair to say

Thank you for clearing that up.
Thank you for ignoring my point. Appointed by the president or not, they can serve for life. If preventing such things are so important then why isn't it prevented in all cases?


He had influence over many of the senators and the courts, it says so in both the books and the movies.
Which is how he convinced them to grant him emergency powers(an emergency that he orchestrated).


Quite true, most of the former presidents didn't want to upset the balance by going over and then having people cry "he stepped over the line! Tyrrany! Tyrrany!"
If going over the line was tyranny then why wasn't this established as a point of law? What if Washington had served 3 terms and the tradition had been set up as such. Would America be some smouldering ruin?


Exaclty, has a president ever had any sort of influence over fellow congressman during his first term of office? Has he had enough to corrupt their opionions?
He may well have if he was politically active before becoming president. You think Obama doesn't have allies in the senate?


Vote freely.
And if the 22nd was abolished tomorrow, would you be unable to vote freely?


Which presidents have had the influence to ensure themselves 2 terms by blackmail?
That it hasn't happened doesn't mean it couldn't. There's as much to prevent it now as there would be for a president trying to serve 5 terms, or 10, or....well after that it starts to get ridiculous. People start dying.
And besides, wouldn't it be stupid to do that only to figure out, "drat, I can only serve 2 terms, what a waste of my time".
Then why run for president at all?

*Sigh*

Democracy is fragile, it depends on the people (draws squigglies on board), if the common people are easily pursuaded, become ignorant, or are too lazy to participate in goverment, then the goverment will ultimately fail. The people would then become more and more reliant on their leaders, by giving them the power, it takes away the most thought of concept of democracy by having the 'consent of the governed', meaning the people.

So an absolutist government fails, but yet gains more and more power somehow?

i like the term limits thing

but i would be willing to consider changing it to not serving for more than 2 consecutive terms so that a person could get a 3rd term after a 4 year break.
I agree. As much as I dislike the idea of a "president for life," I dislike the idea of a dominant party for life even more. Forcing the parties to have to float a new (non-incumbent) candidate every so often, increases the chance that party control over government will switch or be split between the parties -- because how many competent leaders can either of those circus troupes come up with in a row? There's an argument to be made that forcing us to potentially change leading parties every few years increases the chances of alternative parties getting a foot in the door, too.

On the other hand, it is a shame to lose a really good president forever after eight years, so I would not oppose a proposal to amend the 22nd to allow former presidents to run for a third term after a term or two off, but not a third consecutive term.

Otherwise, I would rather give up a good president after eight years than allow for the kind of party entrenchment that I think could come from having no term limits.

3rd times might be epic lulz though. Could you imagine Dubya against Obama in 2008? That would have been a Ray-gun esc landside, only not for the Republicans this time :p

People dig the status quo. That's not helpful.

This particular one serves a double purpose. It protects our republic by ensuring that a single human being never keeps the high level of power the President wields for too long. And it protects the individual Presidents by ensuring they need endure the toughest, most stressful job on earth for no more than eleven years.

Just look at what it did to FDR! It put him in a wheelchair!

I say we should elect the President the same way the Athenians elected council members. Put every registered voter's name in a hat, and pull one name. That person is President for the next two years. Simple, effective, and we don't have to spend all those billions on elections and primaries.

Just look at what it did to FDR! It put him in a wheelchair!

I'm not certain if you're being sarcastic or not. You do know FDR was a cripple when he was elected, don't you?

And at any rate, it almost certainly WAS the stress of the job that killed him.

I say we should elect the President the same way the Athenians elected council members. Put every registered voter's name in a hat, and pull one name. That person is President for the next two years. Simple, effective, and we don't have to spend all those billions on elections and primaries.

The only problem is, then we'd get average citizens in. Bad as the politicians are...

... it protects the individual Presidents by ensuring they need endure the toughest, most stressful job on earth for no more than eleven years.

If someone ran for president who had spent 4 or more years as an Air traffic Controller I would totally vote for them; they would find their new posting as 'leader of the free world' a relaxing and slow paced job.

I agree. As much as I dislike the idea of a "president for life," I dislike the idea of a dominant party for life even more. Forcing the parties to have to float a new (non-incumbent) candidate every so often, increases the chance that party control over government will switch or be split between the parties -- because how many competent leaders can either of those circus troupes come up with in a row? There's an argument to be made that forcing us to potentially change leading parties every few years increases the chances of alternative parties getting a foot in the door, too.

On the other hand, it is a shame to lose a really good president forever after eight years, so I would not oppose a proposal to amend the 22nd to allow former presidents to run for a third term after a term or two off, but not a third consecutive term.

Otherwise, I would rather give up a good president after eight years than allow for the kind of party entrenchment that I think could come from having no term limits.

Once again you say what I would say more eloquently than I would say it.

I agree. As much as I dislike the idea of a "president for life," I dislike the idea of a dominant party for life even more. Forcing the parties to have to float a new (non-incumbent) candidate every so often, increases the chance that party control over government will switch or be split between the parties -- because how many competent leaders can either of those circus troupes come up with in a row? There's an argument to be made that forcing us to potentially change leading parties every few years increases the chances of alternative parties getting a foot in the door, too.

On the other hand, it is a shame to lose a really good president forever after eight years, so I would not oppose a proposal to amend the 22nd to allow former presidents to run for a third term after a term or two off, but not a third consecutive term.

Otherwise, I would rather give up a good president after eight years than allow for the kind of party entrenchment that I think could come from having no term limits.

I don't see it happening. Most of Europe has no term limits and you don't see that sort of Presidential entrenchment afaik.

The 22nd Amendment should be extented to cover all elected offices.

Let Obama serve three terms, and the next President (i.e. Richard Hammond*) can serve 34 terms!

* If he was American. He is, partly

On a late note, I feel a need to mention 40-year emperor Liu Shan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shan)...

its not them. Its one guy in congress. I am sure he is doing to get his name in the headlines and hopefully carry that over for reelection.

On a late note, I feel a need to mention 40-year emperor Liu Shan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shan)...

Are you a Time Lord?

You know what I don't get? Why is it only the president is limited to two terms? Why not Senators and representatives also?

You know what I don't get? Why is it only the president is limited to two terms? Why not Senators and representatives also?

Because they've never vote themsleves out of a job.

I think that so long as the people want a president, he should be allowed to run for office.

It's kind of funny, how this goes-the Left spent eight years beating a drum about a Bush Dictatorship (and eight years in the eighties over Reagan), but it's their guys who want to repeal the most effective term-limits legislation ever passed...now, of course, that their guy is going to be sworn in.

The 22nd Amendment, as much as anything else, accounts for the need to change bodies in the White House, and the tendency for people who would otherwise think about their choices to reflexively vote the incumbent-witness 2004, 1996, etc. etc. There are very few one-term presidents on the books, many of them were of the same party as the president they succeeded (Bush 1, Buchanan, etc.). Minus a major crisis, without term-limits, we'd still have President Clinton, or we could have watched Reagan's death spiral into Alzheimers as President in the 1990's.

If anything, what we need nationally, is a limit on terms at the legislative level to prevent the kind of careerism that's helped corrupt both parties in Congress- even in the "Hot" turnovers of 1994 and 2006, the "Sea Change" was a scant few seats-most of the Democrats and Republicans sitting in our National Legislature have been sitting there through this whole time, many of them elected over a decade ago, most of them so ate-up with the Lobbyist-funded lifestyle that they don't even actually LIVE in their districts, merely maintaining vacation homes to keep up residency requirements-they LIVE in the D.C. area in neighbourhoods in Virginia and Maryland, where they have easy access to their big banker friends in New York and their big-money credit-bank friends in Delaware.

Limiting terms for Congress and the Senate might (just MIGHT, mind you) help cut back on other avenues of the culture of corruption that is Washington D.C.

Correct me if Im wrong, But isnt it just limited to two Consecutive terms...

Like, I believe Bill Couldve ran again if he'd wanted too...I wish he wouldve Ida totally voted for that, lol...

Limiting terms for Congress and the Senate might (just MIGHT, mind you) help cut back on other avenues of the culture of corruption that is Washington D.C.

Or could backfire horribly as everyone sells out as much as possible in their 8 years.

Get rid of it. Let the people vote for who they want as president. It's that democracy thingy.

Perhaps less democracy might be a good thing.

Isn't what government actually does more important than the form it takes, after all? The form being merely a means to an end, to be modified or even replaced entirely if it fails to produce good results.

Keep this Amendment. The people who want Obama to have three terms should remember that without it, Regan could have had three. The law works both ways. Besides, its more power to the Executive Branch, and Bush has done a lot on that front already.

Democracy is only good and desirable because it is the institution which tends to work best. It shouldn't be viewed as some untouchable system just because it is good. If we adhere to democracy when it is less functional than some other way of doing things than we defeat the purpose. We should discuss what will have the best results, not what is more "democratic". Unless it is serving us an institution is worthless.

Err, yeah, this too.

I've been saying it for years.

No one seems to care.

People would rather latch on to words than think about what's really important.

To minimise the danger of the people electing who they want to elect. There's no more danger of people electing a guy who's evil to a third term than to his first two.

FDR was evil, and he was elected to FOUR terms.

Have you SEEN the countries that don't have term limits. If you want that, than by all means, move to Africa. The presidential changes are the only thing that really allows our republic to adapt nowadays.

It's kind of funny, how this goes-the Left spent eight years beating a drum about a Bush Dictatorship (and eight years in the eighties over Reagan), but it's their guys who want to repeal the most effective term-limits legislation ever passed...now, of course, that their guy is going to be sworn in.

Read the thread, the same person proposed the same change in 2003. Remind me, who was president in 2003? Was it some glorious thundering sword of the "Left" that they couldn't bear to see leave?

Have you SEEN the countries that don't have term limits. If you want that, than by all means, move to Africa. The presidential changes are the only thing that really allows our republic to adapt nowadays.

With all due respect, Canada has no term limits on Prime Ministers.

Correct me if Im wrong, But isnt it just limited to two Consecutive terms...

you're wrong.

With all due respect, Canada has no term limits on Prime Ministers.

Yeah but it was PRESIDENTIAL changes, totally different, lol :p

Have you SEEN the countries that don't have term limits. If you want that, than by all means, move to Africa. The presidential changes are the only thing that really allows our republic to adapt nowadays.

Have you seen the countries with them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_term_limits
Some that stick out:
Afghanistan
PRC
Russia
Venezuela

you're wrong.

lol, I was wondering if anyone was going to answer me...

Read the thread, the same person proposed the same change in 2003. Remind me, who was president in 2003? Was it some glorious thundering sword of the "Left" that they couldn't bear to see leave?

I wonder why this guy is still in office.....

Have you seen the countries with them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_term_limits
Some that stick out:
Afghanistan
PRC
Russia
Venezuela

Afganistan has one because we installed it, Russia has just ammended its so they could allow Putin to stay in office...oh, and as for Venezuela, Chavez will be removed as soon as his time is up, so that is great for having a term limit there.

And have you noticed that most of the more modernized nations also have political term limits?

Have you SEEN the countries that don't have term limits. If you want that, than by all means, move to Africa.

Or the UK.

[QUOTE=Anti-Social Darwinism;14402464snip*[/QUOTE]

No, not unless the President-in-question is extremely capable, far better than FDR.

Have you seen the countries with them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_term_limits
Some that stick out:
Afghanistan
PRC
Russia
Venezuela

the term limits, they do nothing!

the term limits, they do nothing!

Wow, a very eloquent statement, the monkeys applaud you!

Seriously, do you have any proof?

Wow, a very eloquent statement, the monkeys applaud you!

Seriously, do you have any proof?

http://www.cubapolidata.com/images/generalBonaparte.jpg

Or the UK.

Again, correct me if Im wrong, but Isnt the Prime Minister not part of a seperate branch in the Westminster System? As in he's part of the Parliament...

Which would be different than the US Federalist System, where the President has no part in Congress or the Legislative branch...Meaning that the UK can change Prime Ministers whenever they switch Majority Parties...

I wonder why this guy is still in office.....
Perhaps his constituents agree with him.



Afganistan has one because we installed it, Russia has just ammended its so they could allow Putin to stay in office...oh, and as for Venezuela, Chavez will be removed as soon as his time is up, so that is great for having a term limit there.
And the People's Republic of China?

And have you noticed that most of the more modernized nations also have political term limits?

My point was that correlation =/= causation. Can you prove that having term limits has contributed in any significant way to the modernisation of any of those modern countries?

With all due respect, Canada has no term limits on Prime Ministers.

and they are a third world hellhole. all hail term limits!

http://www.cubapolidata.com/images/generalBonaparte.jpg

hahaha

I also think it's ridiculous that they're talking about Obama having a third term when he hasn't even started his first.

I heard about interviews where they were asking people in the US about the falling gas prices and at least one person made a remark similar to "Obama's only been president for a few weeks and already he's doing so much good!"

I heard about interviews where they were asking people in the US about the falling gas prices and at least one person made a remark similar to "Obama's only been president for a few weeks and already he's doing so much good!"

And, Unfortunately its been going up again, Damn OPEC...

However I think its plateaued at about $1.70 or so at least...

and they are a third world hellhole. all hail term limits!

You win this thread.

No term limits scares me. We elected Bush to two! and that was legal!

You win this thread.

No term limits scares me. We elected Bush to two! and that was legal!

Bush didn't win his second election. The democrats lost it.

Bush didn't win his second election. The democrats lost it.

Unfortunately, either way he got a second term.

The two term limit was initially a tradition, if I remember correctly. Washington has only served two terms and those who followed, followed his lead; Roosevelt was the exception.
And the first Roosevelt tried it first, and failed.
But what about the vice president, or the secretaries of whatever?
The Vice President must be able to qualify as President in order to serve the position, so if someone has already been President for two terms, they cannot serve as Vice President.

The Secretaries of the various Departments are appointed by the President, so they don't really fall under a term limit kind of thing anyway.

Again, correct me if Im wrong, but Isnt the Prime Minister not part of a seperate branch in the Westminster System? As in he's part of the Parliament...

Which would be different than the US Federalist System, where the President has no part in Congress or the Legislative branch...Meaning that the UK can change Prime Ministers whenever they switch Majority Parties...

The Prime Minster is ultimately no less influential on the Westminster system of government then the president is, and with a majority government, he or she can rule without opposition.

Which is ultimately what this boils down to-- if the party of president in power is capable, and through this is popular, why should people be forced to vote for someone they don't, perhaps, like, or isn't very good?

I can see no reason for term limits, other then some naive paranoid fear.

The Prime Minster is ultimately no less influential on the Westminster system of government then the president is, and with a majority government, he or she can rule without opposition.

But the difference is that a President in the US system can rule without having to be part of the majority party...A Republican President can easily preside over a House and Senate controlled By Democrats, or visa versa, Bill Clinton did...


Which is ultimately what this boils down to-- if the party of president in power is capable, and through this is popular, why should people be forced to vote for someone they don't, perhaps, like, or isn't very good?

I can see no reason for term limits, other then some naive paranoid fear.

Well, idk about Naive (see: George III) but its to ensure, i believe, that no one stays in office based solely on Personality, a President can be incredibly popular but still running the country into the shitter (see: Ronald Reagan)...

But the difference is that a President in the US system can rule without having to be part of the majority party...A Republican President can easily preside over a House and Senate controlled By Democrats, or visa versa, Bill Clinton did...

Bill Clinton had to work with the congress to get anything done, in much the same way a Prime minister must work with the opposition if he or she has a minority government.

The powers of the president are hardly unlimited, and those powers do not change after two terms, it's not as if he or she suddenly transforms into a dictator because they're into a third term.



Well, idk about Naive (see: George III) but its to ensure, i believe, that no one stays in office based solely on Personality, a President can be incredibly popular but still running the country into the shitter (see: Ronald Reagan)...

Welcome to Democracy.

Since when did the President become the most powerful branch? The President has zero legislative power! They can have signing statements and Executive Orders, but everything they do is dependent on Congress.

Oh and I'd like to add the biggest argument against more than two term Presidents isn't an argument against third terms but an argument for difference. Change is a positive thing and if we need to legislate it, let's do it!

Bill Clinton had to work with the congress to get anything done, in much the same way a Prime minister must work with the opposition if he or she has a minority government.

The powers of the president are hardly unlimited, and those powers do not change after two terms, it's not as if he or she suddenly transforms into a dictator because they're into a third term.

True, but with the Clinton administration it went further than just having to work with the opposition, His party was actually in the Minority, and therefore WAS the opposition, unlike in a Parliamentary system where the Prime Minister would always be of the Majority Party...




Welcome to Democracy.

Contrary to popular Belief, The US isnt a full democracy, but a Republic, or a Representative Democracy...

Full Democracy is, as Jefferson so eloquently put it, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."...

As in there are safe guards in place to stop a Tyranny by the Majority...Hence the 22nd Amendment being one of these safeguards...

Since when did the President become the most powerful branch?

At risk of sounding Condescending, and Im sorry if I do...See Presidents Andrew Jackson on Up, lol...

At risk of sounding Condescending, and Im sorry if I do...See Presidents Andrew Jackson on Up, lol...

At the risk of sounding condescending, you're a poopy pants!

Seriously though, you can only sound condescending if you're 100% right. Who makes the law? There are arguments for your opinion, but there are also arguments for mine. Contrary to the popular belief of folks on this forum, something that bothers me to no end, there are many things that have multiple, valid points of view.

I take that back. To sound condescending you have to believe yourself to be 100% right. But as Hobbes says, "You don't know shit, son!"

well i personally dont understand why theres limits to how long the president can be in office every 4 years we shold first have a vote on weather or not you want a different president then depending on the outcome if yes bring in the running people,if no well keep them in office another 4 years till we get sick of him/her or they die wich ever one comes first

At the risk of sounding condescending, you're a poopy pants!
Hey...That was just uncalled for!!! :p lol


Seriously though, you can only sound condescending if you're 100% right. Who makes the law? There are arguments for your opinion, but there are also arguments for mine. Contrary to the popular belief of folks on this forum, something that bothers me to no end, there are many things that have multiple, valid points of view.

I can see your point, but, The President can usually bypass the other branches of Government, Jackson had a famous quote:

“The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. . . . The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Contrary to popular Belief, The US isnt a full democracy, but a Republic, or a Representative Democracy...

Full Democracy is, as Jefferson so eloquently put it, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."...

As in there are safe guards in place to stop a Tyranny by the Majority...Hence the 22nd Amendment being one of these safeguards...
That's not my point, the whole idea of voting is based around popularity, not around skill, or intelligence, or whatever else.

That's not my point, the whole idea of voting is based around popularity, not around skill, or intelligence, or whatever else.

Thats why we have things like the 22nd Amendment, Requirements for what it takes to be President, the Electoral College(to a lesser extent)...To ensure that Unintelligent and unskilled presidents dont get voted in, or in the case of them having been voted in, so that they dont stay in indefinitely...

EDIT: Its not about a Good President wanting to stay in, But making sure we can stop a Bad President from not getting out...

Thats why we have things like the 22nd Amendment, Requirements for what it takes to be President, the Electoral College(to a lesser extent)...To ensure that Unintelligent and unskilled presidents dont get voted in, or in the case of them having been voted in, so that they dont stay in indefinitely...

Yet, since the 22nd amendment, you've voted in Reagan and Bush, and came close to electing Sarah Palin.

The 22nd Amendment does very little, because if the president was doing poorly, he or she would end up booted anyways.

Yet, since the 22nd amendment, you've voted in Reagan and Bush, and came close to electing Sarah Palin.

The 22nd Amendment does very little, because if the president was doing poorly, he or she would end up booted anyways.

Ah, but Reagan had incredible ratings at the end of his presidency, If not for the 22nd amendment, its not impossible that he wouldve stayed in until his Death...

And it wouldve been John McCain not Sarah Palin...

I can see your point, but, The President can usually bypass the other branches of Government
The President can do certain things under his enumerated powers, but bypass the other branches? I'm no history major, but I can't ever recall a President passing into law a piece of legislation. The President has evolved greatly from the times of gdub, and the President being the most public and vocal of all the branches certainly gives him a public-image boost over the two other branches, but the limits placed on the office by the Constitution and Congress over time still hold true.

Its the same argument I would use for the courts being the weakest of the branches. Sure, they can overturn any law that comes out of Congress, but they can't originate anything. The power to create is only held by Congress itself, and that is why I believe they were, are, and always will be the most powerful branch.

We didn't almost elect Palin anyways. Obama won quite handily, and you probably have Palin to thank for that.

Utterly ridiculous. I'm not sure I'm going to want him to have a second term. Let's see how well he does shall we.

The President can do certain things under his enumerated powers, but bypass the other branches? I'm no history major, but I can't ever recall a President passing into law a piece of legislation. The President has evolved greatly from the times of gdub, and the President being the most public and vocal of all the branches certainly gives him a public-image boost over the two other branches, but the limits placed on the office by the Constitution and Congress over time still hold true.

Its the same argument I would use for the courts being the weakest of the branches. Sure, they can overturn any law that comes out of Congress, but they can't originate anything. The power to create is only held by Congress itself, and that is why I believe they were, are, and always will be the most powerful branch.

We didn't almost elect Palin anyways. Obama won quite handily, and you probably have Palin to thank for that.

Thats true, but, Continuing on my Previous example, Jackson was told by the Supreme Court that he could not go into Georgia and commit Genocide against the Cherokee, He told the Courts, "The Supreme Court made its decision, now let them enforce it"...The President has control of the Military, and the power to appoint people, Which, I would contend is a greater power than writing legislation in the grand scheme of things...

Although Congress could cut his funding if they wished, its finding a Politician with enough spine to actually put his name on the line and propose such a measure is the problem...

Generally a President knows its just not going to happen, and, usually unfortunately, Acts Accordingly...

The President has control of the Military, and the power to appoint people, Which, I would contend is a greater power than writing legislation in the grand scheme of things
He can appoint, but Congress advices and consents. And Congress quite often rejects the people the President wants to put into position. Look at the amount of vacancies on the courts, for instance. Advice and consent is of course supposed to force the President to choose people who are moderate in their beliefs and acceptable to both ideologies, but Bush decided he would rather have hundreds of vacancies than compromise. I'm not sure that word is in his vocab, even.

As for military power, I think that has evolved over time as well. The President cannot command troops on American soil (for obvious reasons) except for those elements of the National Guard. I would argue that the media has played a very vital role in limiting the powers of the President by acting as a "fourth branch" of government. In this age of the 24 hour news network, the President can get away with a lot less than he could back in Jackson's time.

Actually, Ulysses Grant, Harry Truman, and Theodore Roosevelt tried to get a third term; none of them survived the primaries.Simply because it is considered heresy if you go after a third term.

Simply because it is considered heresy if you go after a third term.

Well, out of those three options, only Teddy was remotely popular at the end of his Presidency.

Bush decided he would rather have hundreds of vacancies than compromise. I'm not sure that word is in his vocab, even.

I think there is an answer right there...


As for military power, I think that has evolved over time as well. The President cannot command troops on American soil (for obvious reasons) except for those elements of the National Guard.

It has evolved, but it has only gotten stronger, From Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief#Authority_as_Commander-in-Chief_on_the_battlefield

"In the War on Terrorism President George W. Bush has used these war powers to justify several actions, such as the NSA electronic surveillance program and enhanced interrogation techniques. The administration, on several occasions, has promoted a legal theory known as the unitary executive theory, to argue that in his duty as Commander-in-Chief, the President, with his inherent powers, cannot be bound by any law or Congress. Advocates of this theory opine that since the primary task of the President, during a time of war, is protecting US citizens, anything hindering him in that capacity can be considered unconstitutional.[10] In the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy this was used to suggest he was not required to abide by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).[11] The same rationale was used to deny detainees in the War on Terror protection by the Geneva Conventions resulting in a global controversy surrounding apparent mistreatment. Also it is thought that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which was adopted to address prisoner abuse, might be ignored after President Bush added a signing statement, invoking his rights as Commander-in-Chief, to that bill."


I would argue that the media has played a very vital role in limiting the powers of the President by acting as a "fourth branch" of government. In this age of the 24 hour news network, the President can get away with a lot less than he could back in Jackson's time.

While it is true that the media wields alot of clout these days, they dont actually have any direct influence over the President, I would cite: Truman, Johson, Nixon, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush...All of whom operated under pressure from the Media with little actual effect...In the case of the Bushes, its been usually touted as a "Liberal Media Bias" in order to simply discard any comments made by them, and the mantle has even been picked up by a great many Conservative Media Personalities and Political Analysts...

Bush has repeatedly overstepped his boundaries as President and I foresee none of his ridiculous "Presidential powers" lasting beyond January 20. Congress really needs to step up though, they are equally as ridiculous in their silence as Bush has tromped all over our civil liberties.

The media didn't have much of an effect on Nixon?

Bush has repeatedly overstepped his boundaries as President and I foresee none of his ridiculous "Presidential powers" lasting beyond January 20. Congress really needs to step up though, they are equally as ridiculous in their silence as Bush has tromped all over our civil liberties.

Cant argue with you there...


The media didn't have much of an effect on Nixon?

Nixon had little regard for the Media, He had intended to stay in office despite his unpopularity for as long as possible, afterall, Andrew Johnson was unpopular and had actually been impeached, yet managed to stay in office, it wasnt until he was told by Republican Senators that, there existed enough votes in Congress to reach the required 2/3 votes, did he resign...

Yet (and call me naive if you will) every President answers to the public in the end. Nixon's approval ratings might not automatically cause him to lose his office, but they certainly provide strong deterrents to Presidents who are having internal dialogues about wiretapping their opposition party's headquarters. And we can clearly see that W pays attention to those polls that tell him that a vast majority of Americans wouldn't mind if he tripped down the Capitol steps, given his PR blitz in these last few weeks of his Presidency.

So while a President might have carte blanche (not necessarily something I agree with, just an example) during their term, at the end of those 4 years if you've been naughty, its going to be hard even in this day and age to spin something like ignoring the Supreme Court or getting impeached in your favor.

True, but with the Clinton administration it went further than just having to work with the opposition, His party was actually in the Minority, and therefore WAS the opposition, unlike in a Parliamentary system where the Prime Minister would always be of the Majority Party...

Usually but not always.


Contrary to popular Belief, The US isnt a full democracy, but a Republic, or a Representative Democracy...

Full Democracy is, as Jefferson so eloquently put it, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."...

As in there are safe guards in place to stop a Tyranny by the Majority...Hence the 22nd Amendment being one of these safeguards...
I note that Jefferson was long dead by the time the 22nd amendment became law. And you're exaggerating things by mentioning 'full democracy'. Full democracy would be referenda on everything. You can easily have a representative democracy without Presidential term limits. The US survived without them until 1951.

Read the thread, the same person proposed the same change in 2003. Remind me, who was president in 2003? Was it some glorious thundering sword of the "Left" that they couldn't bear to see leave?

Difference being, now the guy's got people who support his nutjob ideas.

Unlike the Westminster system, the American system is structurally incompatible with indefinite service at the head of the Executive Branch. Voter tendencies also play into this- IIRC, the people of Great Britain don't directly hire their prime-minister, their representatives at Parlaiment select the PM instead, making it a system a lot closer to selecting the Speaker of the House than a President. The powers of the PM are basically delegated to him by a combination of Parlaiment, and the Queen.

All of those are limits not present in the U.S. system.

As for the president "Not Legislating"-there's this thing, it's called an Executive Order, and it's got the force of law unless Congress consciously and deliberately overturns it.

I note that Jefferson was long dead by the time the 22nd amendment became law. And you're exaggerating things by mentioning 'full democracy'. Full democracy would be referenda on everything. You can easily have a representative democracy without Presidential term limits. The US survived without them until 1951.

Im not saying you couldnt, just that when we hold elections its not just Popularity being the only requirement, as the post i was responding to was saying...

The 22nd Amendment, although not present at the start, is still one of the
Measures insuring that a President doesnt stay in office based on Popularity alone...

There's also a truism that I think Orwell wrote, about how He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past. Eight years in office is enough time to significantly impact things for decades to come,

For example, the soldiers at Abu Ghraib? most of their NCO's and Officers came up under Clinton's department of Defense policies,including the changes to TRADOC. Note the speed at which said officers passed the buck down the chain and blamed other-than-themselves for the misbehaviour of their soldiers. Likewise the lack of Body-Armour and up-armoured vehicles in Iraq during the early stages of the war was a direct outcome of eight years of constant budget-cuts. The stuff just wasn't in the inventory, and there weren't enough manufacturers to produce enough to handle the pre-Surge needs of the armed services. That's all "Short term" impacts, longer-term impacts can be examined in terms of Judicial Appointments at the Federal level, agency policies that have long-term impacts through who gets appointed, and who gets promoted (and what each of those does to what policies are implemented, and how successfully), and which regulatory agencies will be effective in carrying out their mission.

(For example, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all neglected the FTC or deliberately stocked it with cronies. Imagine how much more cronyism is possible for a President who's in office indefinitely!)

Eight years is enough time for things to be screwed up. By making sure it's not a "Lifetime Position", you prevent too much build-up in the system. So far, each time the Government of the United States has changed hands, the first couple of years are spent rooting out the entrenched mess from the previous administration-it's not perfect, but it's the best we can do, after all, the President appoints judges, and many Congresscritters will vote party-line without reading bills and pass things on without really examining them-a sixteen year president could, concievably, gain enough control over TWO branches to be able to just steamroll the third.

Until 1951, there were de facto term limits placed on the President. Considering they've only been broken once, I'd say the unwritten law was just as strong as the written one.

As for the president "Not Legislating"-there's this thing, it's called an Executive Order, and it's got the force of law unless Congress consciously and deliberately overturns it.
I already addressed Executive Orders. Presidents can say whatever they want in their EOs but as you said, Congress has every right to overturn them. Which means Presidents aren't going to say whatever they want, they are going to try and legislate their viewpoint without going too far in either direction, so their now-moderated legislation will stick.

Are you fucking kidding me? Really? Even Bush's goons didnt try this in the interest of "not changing leadrship during time of national crisis".

God fucking damn.

Is that flaming?

Well, it goes back to Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected to 4 terms in office from the period during The Great Depression all the way to near the end of World War 2.

Republicans pushed for the 22nd Amendment, which meant they shot themselves in the foot when Ronnie Raygun was at the peak of his popularity.

The same people who bitch about the idea of Obama getting more than 2 would likely be the same people who wouldn't blink at giving the same for Dear Leader.

That's the crux of it right there. Each party wants unlimited terms and (potentially) unlimited power for themselves, but not for the other guys.

Is that flaming?

No. But of you dont believe me, feel free to bring it to moderation.


But dont expect a different answer.


Besides, who, exactly, would I be "flaming"?

Is that flaming?

No. Only if KoL had told someone else to fuck off.

No. But of you dont believe me, feel free to bring it to moderation.


But dont expect a different answer.


Besides, who, exactly, would I be "flaming"?

Ok. Fine. Only asking.

That's the crux of it right there. Each party wants unlimited terms and (potentially) unlimited power for themselves, but not for the other guys.

Exactly, and with that in mind, I dont think either should really have it...

Not going to happen.

I'd expect an amendment allowing naturalized citizens (as opposed to natural-born) to become president to be passed first.

so other than complaints with democracy itself (anything contingent on the voters being too stupid/lazy/corrupt to decide things for themselves), what is the argument against free elections rather than term limits?

so other than complaints with democracy itself (anything contingent on the voters being too stupid/lazy/corrupt to decide things for themselves), what is the argument against free elections rather than term limits?

Are you asking what is the argument for term limits?

Term limits prevent "president for life" syndrome. With all of the (somewhat justified) complaints from both sides of voting irregularities, it means not having to worry about the ballot box being stuffed, and not having only one party policy dominating for more than a decade without a reality check.

The term limits are gonna save the neo-conservatives from more than eight years of Obama too, don'tcha know.

Are you asking what is the argument for term limits?

well, i'm wondering if there is one that is independent of distrusting democracy. because it seems like the natural sort of term limit is when people vote the bums out.

The argument I gave earlier in this thread had to do with change being a positive force for democracy.

Term limits prevent "president for life" syndrome.

do we actually have any evidence of this problem occurring somewhere with free and fair elections?

With all of the (somewhat justified) complaints from both sides of voting irregularities, it means not having to worry about the ballot box being stuffed, and not having only one party policy dominating for more than a decade without a reality check.

no it doesn't. you just have to change one guy, not change parties. and any rule that said you had to change parties would clearly be unjust and illegitimate.

do we actually have any evidence of this problem occurring somewhere with free and fair elections?


Yes actually, its called The United States of America, circa 1945...Franklin Delano Roosevelt serving until his Death...

In fact it was the overall purpose of the 22nd Amendment...

Yes actually, its called The United States of America, circa 1945...Franklin Delano Roosevelt serving until his Death...

In fact it was the overall purpose of the 22nd Amendment...

lincoln served in office until his death too. abolish 2nd terms!

if the complaint is merely with being president until you die in office, i fail to even see that as a problem at all. what, specifically is problematic about it?

what is problematic with 'presidents for life' is that short of a coup they cannot be removed from power, and they know so. free elections take care of that issue.

The argument I gave earlier in this thread had to do with change being a positive force for democracy.

but people will only change policies if they feel like it. changing figureheads doesn't actually bring about change by itself.

lincoln served in office until his death too. abolish 2nd terms!

if the complaint is merely with being president until you die in office, i fail to even see that as a problem at all. what, specifically is problematic about it?

Well, Roosevelt died of natural Causes, Lincoln was assassinated, slight difference there, as well, it was only his second term...

However, Both Roosevelt and Lincoln were good Presidents, as previously stated, its about a Bad President who retains popularity staying in office, ala Ronald Reagan...


what is problematic with 'presidents for life' is that short of a coup they cannot be removed from power, and they know so. free elections take care of that issue.

Free Elections do not take care of that issue, the aforementioned, Reagan...and then there's Bush in '04, Nixon in '72...Presidents that were arguably not doing a very good job, yet still retained the Presidency for various reasons...

Its not about letting Good Presidents stay in, but making sure Bad Presidents go out...


You have to look at both sides of the issue...

but people will only change policies if they feel like it. changing figureheads doesn't actually bring about change by itself.

No but it can help prevent the Cult of Personality...Reagan was incredibly popular, to the point where he could almost do no wrong...Yet when Bush Sr. was elected, the flaws in the Republican Policies began to rear their heads and he was promptly voted out of office...

without the 22nd amendment Reagan could have ran again, and presumably could have won, and possibly stayed in till his death...

This shouldn't even be up for debate. The term limits muzzles out the
executive branch from assuming too much power, with a change of
power comes the elimination of whatever control the previous administration
exerted. This isn't a direct democracy, this is a representative democracy.
Checks and balances people.

No but it can help prevent the Cult of Personality...Reagan was incredibly popular, to the point where he could almost do no wrong...Yet when Bush Sr. was elected, the flaws in the Republican Policies began to rear their heads and he was promptly voted out of office...

without the 22nd amendment Reagan could have ran again, and presumably could have won, and possibly stayed in till his death...

yeah, i'm not buying the idea that we don't have a cult of personality around reagan. and the same things that drove bush sr. out would have caught up with reagan around the same time. probably sooner, given reagan's mental decline.

This shouldn't even be up for debate. The term limits muzzles out the
executive branch from assuming too much power, with a change of
power comes the elimination of whatever control the previous administration
exerted. This isn't a direct democracy, this is a representative democracy.
Checks and balances people.

um, i think you need to look up some terms...

yeah, i'm not buying the idea that we don't have a cult of personality around reagan.
Um....yeah, Exactly...Was that not what i said? It was because he had a Cult of Personality that we needed to ensure he couldnt run for a Third or possibly a Fourth Term...


and the same things that drove bush sr. out would have caught up with reagan around the same time. probably sooner, given reagan's mental decline.

They possibly would have caught up to him, but because of his aforementioned Personality and Popularity he may have overcome them...and while it may or may not have been likely, it would be even less, as in impossible, if he cannot in fact run again...

Um....yeah, Exactly...Was that not what i said? It was because he had a Cult of Personality that we needed to ensure he couldnt run for a Third or possibly a Fourth Term...

except that he didn't need to - we got treated to several more decades of crazy from the reagan revolution with him just acting as a figurehead. i'd rather he had stayed in long enough to discredit it himself, personally.

in any case, politics does not work on this ridiculously individual level. its ultimately about parties and ideologies.

except that he didn't need to - we got treated to several more decades of crazy from the reagan revolution with him just acting as a figurehead. i'd rather he had stayed in long enough to discredit it himself, personally.

in any case, politics does not work on this ridiculously individual level. its ultimately about parties and ideologies.

Politics might be parties and ideologies...However Presidential Runs are usually done on a much more Personal and Individual level, Look at the last Obama/McCain race, look at Bush/Kerry....


I would rather him be only a banner, or mantle, than Personally screw things up till his death...But, we'll just have to agree to disagree there i suppose...

in any case, politics does not work on this ridiculously individual level. its ultimately about parties and ideologies.
There are three levels of looking at international relations, and I'm going to apply it to what you're saying as well. You have the international level (or the systemic level), the state level and the individual level. Now all three can be used to explain situations but alone a single one is rarely enough. Conversely, you can't discount any of them offhand. You believe that the system and the state (ideologies and parties are build into both) control the Executive Branch and what happens there, unless I'm mistaken. However, it would not be wrong of someone else - and perhaps unwise of yourself - to overlook the possibility that individuals do play an important role in the Presidency.

Until 1951, there were de facto term limits placed on the President. Considering they've only been broken once, I'd say the unwritten law was just as strong as the written one.


I already addressed Executive Orders. Presidents can say whatever they want in their EOs but as you said, Congress has every right to overturn them. Which means Presidents aren't going to say whatever they want, they are going to try and legislate their viewpoint without going too far in either direction, so their now-moderated legislation will stick.

Ever cook a frog, or a Crab? You start with the water at warmish-room-temperature, over moderate-low heat. but by the time the animal's realizing something's wrong, it's already too late. A fixed term means that either he's got to move faster than he can afford to, or, he's not going to get as far as he intended to go, either way, it's a method to limit how (through gradual means) an elected president can make himself a dictator using the habitual negligence and buck-passing of the Legislative branch.

Are you fucking kidding me? Really? Even Bush's goons didnt try this in the interest of "not changing leadrship during time of national crisis".

God fucking damn.
The exact same issue came up twice during Bush's "terms".

Considering that a person can in fact be elected and/or reelected without winning the popular vote, I think the last thing we need is to make the executive branch any stronger. As I've said before, the Democrats need to be very careful that stupid shit like this doesn't become a major talking point for the Republicans. They've got a big opportunity and making moves like this will do nothing but sour popular opinion and give them a chance to rebuild.

I mean, not even Bush or his supporters proposed this...

Considering that a person can in fact be elected and/or reelected without winning the popular vote, I think the last thing we need is to make the executive branch any stronger. As I've said before, the Democrats need to be very careful that stupid shit like this doesn't become a major talking point for the Republicans. They've got a big opportunity and making moves like this will do nothing but sour popular opinion and give them a chance to rebuild.

I mean, not even Bush or his supporters proposed this...
It came up twice during his run. You were here. What's wrong with your memory?

It came up twice during his run. You were here. What's wrong with your memory?

STRAUGHN!!

Actually, you're right. The difference, of course, is that the Republicans are better at making an issue of it.

STRAUGHN!!:eek:
*ducks*
What!? What!?
http://www.videostatic.com/photos/uncategorized/samwell_butt.jpg
Apparently i'm not a wraith today.

Actually, you're right. The difference, of course, is that the Republicans are better at making an issue of it.You are also right, of course.

STRAUGHN!!

Actually, you're right. The difference, of course, is that the Republicans are better at making an issue of it.

It always depends on WHO is proposing it, and who's supporting it-sure, it comes up every Presidency. I recall some folks saying Clinton should get a third term, and before him, Reagan (Nobody really wanted a second helping of George Herbert Walker Bush, aka "George Senior", AKA "Read My Lipz George" of the S&L Bailouts and the unfinished war.)

It turns up whenever a President looks remotely viable/presidential/popular.

However, it's usually only on the Democrat side where you find it being seriously considered by someone NOT identified as part of the party's radical lunatic fringe. (the guys even their own party faithful look at as being kind of a joke at best, or dangerous radicals at worst.)

If someone "Serious" had floated the idea, say, during Reagan's term, it would be laughed off as a tribute to the man's popularity-but not taken or considered with any seriousness because the idea of Term Limits is pretty strongly embedded into the Party's psychological framework. The best example I can show of this, is that my district is now represented by a Democrat-because the (VERY popular) predecessor (a Republican) promised to only serve three terms-and kept his promise (hence why he was elected two more times after '94).

In general, Dems don't support term-limits, so whenever you start talking about removing term-limits, it's only seriously considered if it's for or about Democrats.

Hence, someone floating the idea for GW is making a joke, the same someone floating it for Obama is treated as serious-because it fits with the Democrat Ethos of widening government power.

Well, Roosevelt died of natural Causes, Lincoln was assassinated, slight difference there, as well, it was only his second term...
*goes to wiki, finds 3 presidents who died of natural causes in their first terms*


However, Both Roosevelt and Lincoln were good Presidents, as previously stated, its about a Bad President who retains popularity staying in office, ala Ronald Reagan...

This argument hinges on you defining a President as bad. Many people would disagree on Reagan. A popular President is by definition one most Americans think it a good one.


Free Elections do not take care of that issue, the aforementioned, Reagan...and then there's Bush in '04, Nixon in '72...Presidents that were arguably not doing a very good job, yet still retained the Presidency for various reasons...

Its not about letting Good Presidents stay in, but making sure Bad Presidents go out...


Reagan didn't have any more of a Personality cult than Thatcher and probably less of one than Churchill, but both of those lost popularity and got the boot without term limits.

I was an volunteer organizer with the Obama Campaign, very active in it all. I admit I am a bit uncomfortable with any extension on term limits, and I do not think surely that Obama himself would want that. It would personally make me a little leery even if it seemed good at the time.

8 years is a long time in today's fast moving world. If anything President Obama needs to shrink back the Executive from all of the EOs issued by Bush.

I am for term limits on Congress. Definitely. An insider to Washington culture said most lose their identity and become part of the Washington D.C. culture easily. It is a different "mindset", and not always for the people. Only the power brokers.

Really some nobility in history were deposed of in shorter time than some Congressmen have been sitting. What makes them much different than some form of aristocracy if their there for over 15 years?

I was an volunteer organizer with the Obama Campaign, very active in it all. I admit I am a bit uncomfortable with any extension on term limits, and I do not think surely that Obama himself would want that. It would personally make me a little leery even if it seemed good at the time.

8 years is a long time in today's fast moving world. If anything President Obama needs to shrink back the Executive from all of the EOs issued by Bush.

I am for term limits on Congress. Definitely. An insider to Washington culture said most lose their identity and become part of the Washington D.C. culture easily. It is a different "mindset", and not always for the people. Only the power brokers.

Really some nobility in history were deposed of in shorter time than some Congressmen have been sitting. What makes them much different than some form of aristocracy if their there for over 15 years?

The aristocracy didn't have much of a need to keep getting elected. An election is the public's stamp of approval on a politician's time in office and on their perception of how he will perform in the next term. Let the people decide a congressman has lost his identity etc.

Ever cook a frog, or a Crab? You start with the water at warmish-room-temperature, over moderate-low heat. but by the time the animal's realizing something's wrong, it's already too late. A fixed term means that either he's got to move faster than he can afford to, or, he's not going to get as far as he intended to go, either way, it's a method to limit how (through gradual means) an elected president can make himself a dictator using the habitual negligence and buck-passing of the Legislative branch.
Were you agreeing with me inasmuch as I was agreeing with those who wanted to keep the term limit?

I don't like the 22nd Amendment. It is another limit on our civil liberties. Obama for a third term - only if the USA survives his first.

Obama needs to start his first term, don't get ahead of yourself

I don't like the 22nd Amendment. It is another limit on our civil liberties. Obama for a third term - only if the USA survives his first.

What if it doesnt survive the Second?...


I thought about replying to other posts....but I can do nothing but repeat the same thing Ive been saying, lol...no point at this point...

The exact same issue came up twice during Bush's "terms".

Good point. It has come up with every president in the past 30 years, except Presidents Carter and G.H.W. Bush.

Good point. It has come up with every president in the past 30 years, except Presidents Carter and G.H.W. Bush.
Pretty much, yeah.

I don't like the 22nd Amendment. It is another limit on our civil liberties. Obama for a third term - only if the USA survives his first.

How is it a limit on our civil liberties? It's a limit on the POTUS getting enough power to restrict our liberties even more.

So some noname entered a Bill.

I am not going to worry about it. Madison and co thought this stuff out. The process to remove the amendment all but guarantees it will remain.

The people that don't like Obama won't go for it.
The people who like Obama won't go for it simply because they could see somebody they don't like getting three terms.

There is a great deal of expectations set for Obama and he probably won't meet it and that alone will kill the movement if it even had a chance of starting.....

How is it a limit on our civil liberties? It's a limit on the POTUS getting enough power to restrict our liberties even more.

It limits your freedom to vote for whom you wish to be your President. That is undeniable, the question is whether you think this restriction on your civil liberties is a good thing or not.