22nd Amendment to be repealed?

[MasterJedi]

Yes, and if not a full repeal at least make it be a 3 term limit.

[MaC]

Nym, the concept is based upon limited government which is why Libertarians are against unlimited terms.  Yes, there are cases when a tyrant comes to power and stays because of democracy-FDR and Hitler serve as two shining examples.  All someone needs to know is how to fool enough of the majority to get elected everytime.

[Nym90]

I'd strongly support this being repealed. I trust the people to make good decisions about who to vote for for President.

So you agree with the decision on GWB then?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keep in mind though that who you vote for affects other people if that candidate wins. Also keep in mind that democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority if it's allowed to become too democratic. We want people to be able to run their personal lives as they see fit so long as they aren't harming others, and that end will not likely be accomplished if things get too democratic. These ideas aren't putting limits on individuals and how they can run their private affairs, they are putting limits on government and how it works. We endorse the ideas because we believe that structuring government in this way will be better for personal freedom.

In other words we trust people to make decisions well enough with their own lives, but when it comes to making decisions for other people we aren't nearly so trusting.

Well I agree that what you say makes sense from a Libertarian perspective. I appreciate the insight.

And no, I don't agree with the decision to reelect Bush, but I do respect the right of the people to make that choice.

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not true if we have term limits.

You said voting for offices should be unrestricted. Should we abolish age requirements? Residency requirements? Possibly yes, but I wouldn't say I'm against restrictions on principle. I would say you look at the individual restriction and whether or not it serves a purpose that outweighs the costs.

I only support limits for executive offices, because this is the only level where I think there is a risk of cult of personality upsetting checks and balances. Frankly, there are many things I do distrust the people on: I distrust them to vote directly on how to interpret the Constitution, for example. That's why we have judges. I distrust them to vote on individual rights, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. I distrust them to vote directly on all on legislation, that's why we have representatives who do it. The whole idea of checks and balances comes down to these institutions that limit situations where pure majority rule is a problem. And I think executive-office term limits is one of those protections.

Term limits do not prevent the continuations of the same themes, the same ideas, the same policies, or the same directions. All it prevents is continuation of the same person, beyond 8 years. I think people have a tendency in some cases to build up a cult of personality; to create an idol whose personal aura and lure eventually becomes its own independent force. By this point we are basically electing royalty, a kind of royalty anointed by the majority. Executive term limits keep this tendency in ultimate check and focuses our democracy on the ideas, the policies, and the processes, and not any one individual. That is why I support them.

I do agree that if we are going to have term limits, it makes a lot more sense for the executive branch than it does for the legislative. And I certainly don't support direct democracy or getting rid of checks and balances, I just think that the pendulum has swung too far away from democracy with things like term limits adding to the list of things I and you both already mentioned, all of which I, like you, do support.

[© tweed]

Yes, of course.  In the name of democracy, let the people vote for whom they choose.

But we're a republic, not a democracy.  I could see possibly modifying the 22nd so that it limited a president to no more than two consecutive terms while allowing as many terms as one can get elected to subject to the restriction on consecutive terms.   (It's what some states have for gubernatorial term limits.)   

You semi-called me out on a technicality without actually providing an argument.  Impressive.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not true if we have term limits.

You said voting for offices should be unrestricted. Should we abolish age requirements? Residency requirements? Possibly yes, but I wouldn't say I'm against restrictions on principle. I would say you look at the individual restriction and whether or not it serves a purpose that outweighs the costs.

I only support limits for executive offices, because this is the only level where I think there is a risk of cult of personality upsetting checks and balances. Frankly, there are many things I do distrust the people on: I distrust them to vote directly on how to interpret the Constitution, for example. That's why we have judges. I distrust them to vote on individual rights, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. I distrust them to vote directly on all on legislation, that's why we have representatives who do it. The whole idea of checks and balances comes down to these institutions that limit situations where pure majority rule is a problem. And I think executive-office term limits is one of those protections.

Term limits do not prevent the continuations of the same themes, the same ideas, the same policies, or the same directions. All it prevents is continuation of the same person, beyond 8 years. I think people have a tendency in some cases to build up a cult of personality; to create an idol whose personal aura and lure eventually becomes its own independent force. By this point we are basically electing royalty, a kind of royalty anointed by the majority. Executive term limits keep this tendency in ultimate check and focuses our democracy on the ideas, the policies, and the processes, and not any one individual. That is why I support them.

I do agree that if we are going to have term limits, it makes a lot more sense for the executive branch than it does for the legislative. And I certainly don't support direct democracy or getting rid of checks and balances, I just think that the pendulum has swung too far away from democracy with things like term limits adding to the list of things I and you both already mentioned, all of which I, like you, do support.

Well, I think it would be better to first go after rules which make little sense, such as the electoral college. The electoral college creates an effective elite out of about 1/3 of the electorate living in battleground states, while pushing the rest- urban and rural, republican and democratic alike, to the fringes of the political body.

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not true if we have term limits.

You said voting for offices should be unrestricted. Should we abolish age requirements? Residency requirements? Possibly yes, but I wouldn't say I'm against restrictions on principle. I would say you look at the individual restriction and whether or not it serves a purpose that outweighs the costs.

I only support limits for executive offices, because this is the only level where I think there is a risk of cult of personality upsetting checks and balances. Frankly, there are many things I do distrust the people on: I distrust them to vote directly on how to interpret the Constitution, for example. That's why we have judges. I distrust them to vote on individual rights, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. I distrust them to vote directly on all on legislation, that's why we have representatives who do it. The whole idea of checks and balances comes down to these institutions that limit situations where pure majority rule is a problem. And I think executive-office term limits is one of those protections.

Term limits do not prevent the continuations of the same themes, the same ideas, the same policies, or the same directions. All it prevents is continuation of the same person, beyond 8 years. I think people have a tendency in some cases to build up a cult of personality; to create an idol whose personal aura and lure eventually becomes its own independent force. By this point we are basically electing royalty, a kind of royalty anointed by the majority. Executive term limits keep this tendency in ultimate check and focuses our democracy on the ideas, the policies, and the processes, and not any one individual. That is why I support them.

I do agree that if we are going to have term limits, it makes a lot more sense for the executive branch than it does for the legislative. And I certainly don't support direct democracy or getting rid of checks and balances, I just think that the pendulum has swung too far away from democracy with things like term limits adding to the list of things I and you both already mentioned, all of which I, like you, do support.

Well, I think it would be better to first go after rules which make little sense, such as the electoral college. The electoral college creates an effective elite out of about 1/3 of the electorate living in battleground states, while pushing the rest- urban and rural, republican and democratic alike, to the fringes of the political body.

True, and I do support getting rid of it as well and going with the popular vote (though my ideal would be instant run off voting or at least a run off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority). I was referring to our shared opposition to allowing the people direct vote over constitutional interpretation, individual rights, or legislation.

[Beet]

Yeah, we agree on that

[Angel of Death]

Just like campaign finance reform, the 22nd Amendment is a means to attack a symptom and not the underlying problem, which in both cases is the lack of democracy in the United States.

[True Democrat]

I support repeal of the amendment.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

"Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."

Then why won't it?

[Ebowed]

Yes.  If the people want to elect someone for a third term, they should be able to.  We are only in danger of tyranny because the separation of powers between the branches is being usurped by the current executive branch which apparently thinks laws don't apply when we're fighting a war against terrorism.  Any president that has violated the civil rights of his citizens has not been deterred by the threat of term limits.

Besides, under the current system, the second term is basically useless.  Look at the guy we have in office right now.

[David S]

Would anyone really want Clinton for life or Bush for life? Leave the 22nd amendment alone. If anything reduce it to one term... hmmm maybe half a term.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

We need an amendment to only count votes from people living in areas above a certain population density+number of population. To keep out the rural voters.

[YRABNNRM]

We need an Amendment to keep you from breathing oxygen.

[DWPerry]

We need an amendment to only count votes from people living in areas above a certain population density+number of population. To keep out the rural voters.

I'd like an Amendment requiring voter's to pass the USA Citizenship test before being allowed to register.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

We need an amendment to only count votes from people living in areas above a certain population density+number of population. To keep out the rural voters.

I'd like an Amendment requiring voter's to pass the USA Citizenship test before being allowed to register.

I would not oppose your proposal either since it weeds out the noneducated types.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Executive power should be restricted, that is why I support the 22nd Amendment.  If it passes Congress (which I find highly unlikely), I doubt it would pass the State Legislatures.

[Storebought]

Well, I think it would be better to first go after rules which make little sense, such as the electoral college. The electoral college creates an effective elite out of about 1/3 of the electorate living in battleground states, while pushing the rest- urban and rural, republican and democratic alike, to the fringes of the political body.

The EC is not responsible for the political monocultures that have arisen in large states (CA, NY, TX, IL).

 

[dazzleman]

Would anyone really want Clinton for life or Bush for life? Leave the 22nd amendment alone. If anything reduce it to one term... hmmm maybe half a term.

Well, Jimmy Carter supported the idea of a single 6-year term.  That automatically makes it a bad idea.

Eventually, they'd lose the next election.

I don't really support the 22nd amendment unless there are other term limits as well.

Even so, I think presidents should leave office after 2 terms.  Both Clinton and Reagan could probably have won re-election to a 3rd term, but people get tired of the same old thing, and their standing in history is often better if they leave office after 2 terms.

Most officeholders should follow this rule.  It's when they stick around too long in the same job that they start screwing up, and end up ruining their reputations.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, but probably make at least a 16 yr. limit.