Talk Elections

Would you support a State law requiring a Presidential candidate to have not been on the ballot in the general election in a lot of preceding two Presidential elections?

Given the wide deference granted by the Constitution to the State Legislatures in how they decide to be electors, I don't see any Constitutional objections.  Other than FDR, the only three Presidents who would have been affected by this idea in the era of popular election are Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, and Richard Nixon.

I hate term limits.  They are un-American.  If the voters want to elect someone twenty times, that is their perogative as voters, and we shouldn't tell them who to vote for.

No matter what your opinion of the man, do we really need Ralph Nader running for President a fourth time?

If he wants to, and he can gain ballot access, he should be able to do so.

Term limits fail. So do ballot access laws.

If Pat Paulsen wants to run (and lose) 6 times for the presidency, I say "Go for it!"
(1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1992 and 1996.)

Let everyone on the ballot as many times as they want to be.

PS
"Ballot Access" was never a problem when the government didn't print the ballots.

Has it ever been seriously proposed, or are we just idly wondering?  [at a no-Constitutional-Amendment-required way of adding the term limits we already have in our Constitution?]

The Articles of Confederation had term limits.  Term limits were considered as part of the Bill of Rights.  The Founding Fathers never conceived that a political class would develop that considered their occupation to be Representative or Senator.  It is un-American in a Republic to have single individuals serving for long periods of time.

No its not.

Oh yes it was... just in a different way...

That would be highly unconstitutional.

How so?  The States can choose electors any which way they want to.  Restricting the office of elector to people who commit to not voting for a person who has run for President a certain number of times is certainly no less constitutional than requiring electors to state ahead of time who they have commited to voting for specific Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

But electors don't HAVE to vote how they say anyway.

Then perhaps we should go back to listing the electors on the ballot instead of the persons that they plan to vote for when the electoral college convenes. 

And perhaps the 2nd place person should become Vice-President and the candidates don't get to pick running mates - come on - everybody knows that going back to the original system would be terrible.  It'd drive away voters - most of the stupid one's who don't know what they're doing - so that'd be good - but still, it's a bad idea - it complicates the system.

It would NOT be terrible, it would be GREAT!
Just imagine President Kennedy and VP Nixon, JFK may never be assassinated, Watergate may never happen, no President Ford, possibly no President Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton.

I'd LOVE to see us return to the ORIGINAL Constitution of the USA!

This is foolish.  It is up to the voters to elect whoever they want, no matter how long they have been in office.  That is why I hate the 22nd Amendment.

And you'd have fights and assassinations and power plays - no - it's the world's dumbest idea.  Think of how many assassinations we'd have.

Why do you hate the Constitution and Freedom?

<devil's advocate>
Probably none.  Until Lincoln tore up the Constitution in his treasonous quest to conquer the Confederate States, not a single President died by violence.
</devil's advocate>

Now's different - we'd have conspiracies and everything.

DWPerry: And I don't hate the constitution - they CHANGED the constitution - so I'm ebracing the amendment.

So, NOW, you hate Freedom!

j/k

In all serious, I'd like to see us repeal the 12th, 16th, 17th, section 1 of the 14th & sections 1, 2 & 5 of the 20th, 23rd Amendment.
I'd also like to see the ratification of the Titles of Nobility Amendment, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment & the Liberty Amendment.