This is from a constituent survey my company is doing. I'm curious what our posters here think. H.J.Res. 15 is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) has introduced a bill that would allow President Obama to run for office again. The measure would abolish term limits for U.S. presidents by repealing the 22nd Amendment. Both Republicans and Democrats have introduced similar bills since 1997. The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1947 and ratified in 1951 as a reaction to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s fourth term presidency. It bars any president from serving more than two full terms in office. Both the House and the Senate and three-fourths of the states would have to approve the constitutional amendment. Those in favor of the bill say a U.S. president should be allowed to continue to serve the country for many terms. They add that the country could continue to grow more easily if presidents were allowed to continue to strengthen their foreign and domestic relationships. They add that putting an inexperienced person in the Oval Office at least every 8 years is costly to the country. Those against the measure say it would allow one administration to have too much influence over vital appointments, such as Supreme Court justices. They add that doing away with term limits would be the opposite of what people are calling for in a citizen’s government. They also say that the longer one person is in power, the more corrupt that person can become.
I would vehemently oppose such a measure to eliminate term limits. In fact, I would support term limits for congress as well. I have serious doubt that this measure will make it very far or be tolerated by the American people.
My opinion isn't firm on this question...I see the value in limits and the value of institutional memory. The founding fathers did not want a professional governing class even though they became one. Look at who played major roles in all phases of the US and state governments from 1775 through 1820, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe etc. That should indicate there is no clear answer. l think congress works better without them. Let voters keep the worthy. The caveat to this is that we have let politicians gerrymander districts to make too many safe seats. If seats were more competitive I don't think there would be the extreme polarity in either party we see today and a congressman/woman would have to find a way to please a true majority or get kicked out. For Presidents I tend to agree with the 2 term limit. There is too much power vested in the presidency as it is today. I don't think many since FDR would have been interested in or have been successful going for a 3rd term but the potential is frightening enough to me to be against it.
Executives should be term limited. Turnover at the top is good. But I've changed my mind on term limits for Congress or Legislatures. Since they term-limited the Louisiana legislature, there is nobody left there who thinks in the long term. They all know that they won't be around to deal with the consequences of their actions, so they act rashly. Worse, they spend their entire first term trying to get re-elected and then they spend their entire second term trying to get pork back home to the district.They all look for short-term solutions at the expense of long-term consequences. No, I once thought that those 30-year state senators were all fat cats with too much influence and it was probably true. But it was a small price to pay for the institutional memory they provided, their long-term agendas, and the responsibility they showed towards the state, not just to their local constituents.
Of course Shane anytime a party has what seems like a sure winner it is brought up. The Rs immediately regretted the amendment when Ike was elected and did it when Reagan was pres and even in the early W Bush years. It seems a natural to want it when it fits but it will never happen in this poarized atmosphere. It would never get the votes in Congress or enough states to pass it while Obama is pres and if the Rs find someone as popular the Ds won't let it happen.
I think it's all unfolding exactly according to a "plan".....not a surprise move at all. You don't just jump up and say you wanna destroy a country, destroy freedoms be a dictator and get elected, doesn't work. Ask Hitler, you have to baby step your way into this, it's dictator 101......one little inch of lost freedom at a time.
Chick lose the paranoia. Heaven knows I have zero taste for Obama and the Ds but this has been a play with two term presidents since it was approved in the 1950's. Some hack always does it for his man R or D and it has none, no, zero nada chance of passing congress, the senate or being approved by enough states to become active.
