Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 06:11:23 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  Term limits to be a Presidential candidate, not just in office
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Well?
No term limit   -17 (94.4%)
Three consecutive terms   -1 (5.6%)
Three total terms   -0 (0%)
Two consecutive terms   -0 (0%)
Two total terms   -0 (0%)
Other   -0 (0%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 18

Author Topic: Term limits to be a Presidential candidate, not just in office  (Read 6966 times)
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28469
United States


View Profile WWW
« on: August 31, 2007, 03:50:35 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Warner for Senate '14
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30640
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2007, 08:08:14 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28469
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2007, 08:23:55 pm »
Ignore

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

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33586


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2007, 10:55:30 pm »
Ignore

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

Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2007, 10:28:31 am »
Ignore

Term limits fail. So do ballot access laws.
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
bergie72
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 379
Germany


Political Matrix
E: 4.77, S: -3.48


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2007, 12:37:11 am »
Ignore

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.)
Logged

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36
Southern Patriot
DWPerry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1693
Puerto Rico


Political Matrix
E: 7.03, S: -6.26

View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2007, 12:45:50 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged


Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4685
Slovenia


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2007, 01:17:19 am »
Ignore

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?]
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5828
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2007, 09:20:34 am »
Ignore

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.
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.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2007, 09:30:28 am »
Ignore

No its not.
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2007, 09:48:02 am »
Ignore

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

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2007, 12:03:45 am »
Ignore

That would be highly unconstitutional.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28469
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2007, 12:39:44 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2007, 03:02:17 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28469
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2007, 12:32:43 pm »
Ignore

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. 
Logged

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2007, 01:53:48 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Southern Patriot
DWPerry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1693
Puerto Rico


Political Matrix
E: 7.03, S: -6.26

View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2007, 07:05:03 pm »
Ignore

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!
Logged


Warner for Senate '14
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30640
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2007, 09:14:03 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2007, 01:50:17 am »
Ignore

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!

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.
Logged
Southern Patriot
DWPerry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1693
Puerto Rico


Political Matrix
E: 7.03, S: -6.26

View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2007, 01:54:21 am »
Ignore

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!

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?
Logged


True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28469
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2007, 12:21:34 pm »
Ignore

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

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.

<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>
Logged

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2007, 08:52:12 pm »
Ignore

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

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.

<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.
Logged
Southern Patriot
DWPerry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1693
Puerto Rico


Political Matrix
E: 7.03, S: -6.26

View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2007, 09:55:53 pm »
Ignore

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

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.

<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.
Logged


Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines