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

If that president could do all what he/she promised to do in in that two term, what else can that person do, unless he keep everything running smoothly. Two term is enough if they done everything they said in the campaign

Originally Posted by Priestess Angel

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.

The reason why it was passed was 'cause 'fore President Roosevelt, presidents had a tradition; as started by President Washington; of servin' only 2 terms and then steppin' down. Congress passed the 22nd amendment in an effort ta maintain that tradition, of which, President Roosevelt broke. Personally, I agree wit Term-Limits, I jus' wish that we could apply them ta Congress as well; although I do believe that Congress over-stepped their boundarys of power by passin' the amendment and so thus, in my opinion, broke the law. But that's jus' me.

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.

I agree wity Ky.

People need change. Plain and simple. Times change like the direction of the wind and so do people. With those changes come new ideas and new goals/objectives. If you've got someone running the country for more than two terms, that's about eight years of keepin' the same old idea and rejecting the newer ones that come with change.

I look at it this way. If you want someone to rule the country for more than eight years, then conquer the White House and form a monarchy. Kings and queens (emperors and such) are the ones who get to dictate how long one stays ruler. But in a democracy it's a public decision. The people choose. Therefore, we'd be getting stripped of our voting rights and need for change if a president was to last longer than two terms. What if Bush were to serve more than two terms as president? We'd be in Iraq for YEARS! I say keep the 22nd amendment the way it is, dammit!

Oh, trust me, it's better if there is a limit. Of course I was sad too when our wonderful President Freiberga had to leave and we got that creepy doctor as a president!!! It's just so sad... Freiberga was a really good president.

But, firstly, too much power makes people arrogant, makes the president to forget about what he has to do sooner or later. I trust it can happen to even the best people, I bet I would turn all arogant too if I got all the power in my hands.

Secondly, I would be great if you would know the situation in Russia, my parents are almost panicking (I'm too busy with other stuff to panick), because they see that Russia is becomming not a democratic country at all. Putin has so much power in his hands it's not normal for a democratic country. I mean he proclaimed himself a president, which was like when Napoleon took the crown from the pope and crowned himself an emperor!!!
Thank godness they have it written in the Constitution that a president can't be in rule for more than two years, with no exceptions, otherways we would see the rebirth of Societ Union!!!
And don't think that voting would easily fix it, he has enough power to either buy some votes or just fake the results!

Therefore, it's better if you do have the two term limit.

Actually, I've always thought that the ancient Greek variant, when the people in the rule don't get any wages for it, is a very good variant- if that happens, only the people who really care about the country get to rule (if we consider that they are educated etc.). I guess it's quite impossible thesedays, because it's just impossible to live without money, but still, I think it would do good...

yes i think if he is elected for more then 2 years he should be able to go back into to office like the old days when that happened.

HECK NO
If he or she will wore out thier welcome , Look at Bush jr, his welcome is getting very thin and he kinda messing up.

It's so that the US can change what happens inside of it, because if you had the same president for like...20 years let's say, the ideas would all be the same.

Furthermore, I see what you are saying, i don't see why a president can't be elected for more than 2 terms, IF the population is willing to vote for him.

After all....Is this not a democracy? We should be able to choose who gets to sit in the white house. Even if their two terms are over.