Should Presidents be able to serve more terms, non-consecutively?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Should the law be changed to allow Presidents to service more than two terms, though only two consecutive ones? A second term President like Obama would be ineligible to run in 2016, but could run again in 2020.

[SPC]

I suppose it would remove the subtlely of having the two-term President's wife or brother run for his non-consecutive term.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

No, not at all.

[SteveRogers]

I'd have no problem with this. I'd be fine doing away with term limits altogether as long as everyone understood that the de facto rule was a two-term limit and that a president should only ever run for a third term in extraordinary circumstances (like a word war maybe). That system worked pretty well for our country for a long time.

[politicallefty]

I oppose all term limits for elected offices (and would support repeal of the 22nd Amendment). However, I would support loosening them in the meantime, like the OP's proposal.

[Mordecai]

Sure. I highly doubt you could even find a President that would want to return to office or whose party would want to return to office.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Sure. 

[SWE]

There should be no term limits

[Potatoe]

There should be no term limits

[H. Ross Peron]

There should be no term limits

[BaconBacon96]

There should be no term limits

[RosettaStoned]

 Hell no; four years is long enough, IMO.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah, although it might have the awful consequence of Bill and Hillary swapping the job every eight years.

[Sec. of State Superique]

I don't like term limits but I do support them in Presidential Systems. The President is the center of attention of a nation, it has many powers and allowing them to stay for so long may be dangerous. Here in Brasil, there are still rumors of people wanting Lula to come back since our term-limit laws work the way you said (You are allowed to run for a third-term non-consecutively). Politics shouldn't be about leaders and their willingness to stay in power, it should be about ideology and about a Party that represent said ideology remaining in power.

When we talk about Parliamentarian Systems, however, things work a little bit diffferent. Terms are more flexible and elections can be called earlier. I see less problems, democratically speaking, of Thatcher staying in 10 Downing Street for 11 years rather than having Hugo Chavez running every election cycle. Presidential power is not as sensible to the popular mood as Parliaments are and that's why I would support term-limits for Presidents.

[morgieb]

I don't see why term limits should exist at all, personally.

[Del Tachi]

I don't see why term limits should exist at all, personally.

Putin. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No. No one should remain in power too long, even if non-consecutively.

Actually, I'd prefer a Mexican solution: you get one term of six years and that's all.

[Nichlemn]

I don't see why term limits should exist at all, personally.

Putin. 

I think that's more reflective of Russia's institutions. In a freer democracy like the US, you wouldn't have much worry about a Putin arising. I'd imagine that term limits would be pretty toothless at stopping a Putin arising anyway, seeing as leaders that want to get rid of them have often managed to get them overturned (Chavez, Bloomberg).

[The Dowager Mod]

Yes.
The 22nd amendment should be repealed or extended to include the other branches in some way as well.

[TNF]

Abolish the Presidency (normal)