Thread: Should a President Serve For More Than Two Terms?

They used to be able to serve more terms but when the 22nd amendment was created it stated that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

President Elect-Articles

I agree with it. It's nice to have new ideas in the White House every two terms if the same president is elected twice. I don't think they should be able to serve more then 8 years.

Originally Posted by Ky-lyrra

They used to be able to serve more terms but when the 22nd amendment was created it stated that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

President Elect-Articles

Yes, I know this but what I don't understand why this amendment was passed. To me there is no point to it. Amendments are there to prevent something bad. I don't see the bad in a president serving more than two terms.

Sorry misread your question then.

I still stand by the fact that it's nice to move over and give someone a chance at running the country after 8 years of presidency. By that time it's due for new ideas that was not thought about by the previous president. Plus some people might think that they president is doing a good job but others might think the total opposite so it's more of a chance to let others move into play and give it their best shot at pleasing both the people and the government.

I agree with Ky-lyrra. It's good to get fresh and new ideas into a leadership for a country.

Australia's last Prime Minister was so for 10 years. He may have been great in leading and great when it came to economics (or some would say..), but he was backward in thinking when it came to social and environmental issues.

What it resulted in is backward laws, that need to be changed to suit the changing society and values. Changing a President every two terms is a sure way to get things moving for a changing society.

Originally Posted by Ky-lyrra

Sorry misread your question then.

I still stand by the fact that it's nice to move over and give someone a chance at running the country after 8 years of presidency. By that time it's due for new ideas that was not thought about by the previous president. Plus some people might think that they president is doing a good job but others might think the total opposite so it's more of a chance to let others move into play and give it their best shot at pleasing both the people and the government.

Originally Posted by _gwenibe_

I agree with Ky-lyrra. It's good to get fresh and new ideas into a leadership for a country.

Australia's last Prime Minister was so for 10 years. He may have been great in leading and great when it came to economics (or some would say..), but he was backward in thinking when it came to social and environmental issues.

What it resulted in is backward laws, that need to be changed to suit the changing society and values. Changing a President every two terms is a sure way to get things moving for a changing society.

I hear you guys out about how it gives the chance for new ideas but elections give us this chance, too. Even if a president could serve for more than two terms there would still be elections deciding if they would serve more than that. So then you can decide if you want to stay with the same president whose ideas you still favor or go with the guy who is fresh with new ideas.

Originally Posted by Priestess Angel

I hear you guys out about how it gives the chance for new ideas but elections give us this chance, too. Even if a president could serve for more than two terms there would still be elections deciding if they would serve more than that. So then you can decide if you want to stay with the same president whose ideas you still favor or go with the guy who is fresh with new ideas.

Of course even if there is more than two terms, the people would still get to decide. But even if the people decided to keep a president in for more than 2 terms, doesn't mean it's a good thing for a country. I think it's very rare for a person to change their way of thinking eg. if a president doesn't believe in climate change = him not supporting anything do with it for the 10 years he is in power. For some people no matter who you support in politics, it can be seen as a bad thing. Then again..because they were voted in again - does mean that the country has spoken and is obvious that the people like him.

It's primarily to prevent America from becoming what it fought against in the revolutionary war: monarchy, or worse, dictatorship. The only reason Roosevelt stayed in office as long as he did was because of the depression and World War II. George Washington foresaw this which is why he stepped down after his second term. It's simply maintaining the democratic integrity of our democracy. Without these kind of guidelines, it would be elected King Bush the second. Yeah, scared me too.