Should they repeal the 22nd Amendment?

[Chris B]

That thread disscussing the possibility of Bill Clinton running for Vice President caused me to wonder about this. Do you think that Presidents should be allowed to continue to run for re-election as long as they want, until they step down or are voted out of office?

 

[Halcohol]

No, they shouldn't repeal the amendment. The whole purpose of it is to instigate change in the administration every 8 years (max). Change in leadership will help any country to grow, as different leaders have different focuses. This helps the entire country grow as a whole, as opposed to increased disparity.

 

[Darren Daring]

no.

 

[Chris B]

No, they shouldn't repeal the amendment. The whole purpose of it is to instigate change in the administration every 8 years (max). Change in leadership will help any country to grow, as different leaders have different focuses. This helps the entire country grow as a whole, as opposed to increased disparity.

For the most part I agree. Though I think that there are circumstances where experienced leadership is need. A good example could be when the U.S. entered WWII and FDR was still in the Oval Office.

 

[Matt]

No.

 

[Halcohol]

For the most part I agree. Though I think that there are circumstances where experienced leadership is need. A good example could be when the U.S. entered WWII and FDR was still in the Oval Office.

A president who leads the world out of the Great Depression and armed his country successfully to defeat the Nazis in WWII is a completely different person from the president currently in power. Bush has the USA drowning in a war it started itself under false pretenses.

Roosevelt deserved to remain in power until the day of his death. He was, in my opion (I'm minoring in American history) the single greatest president in the history of the nation. Had the 22nd been in place during FDR's time, (and if I was an American) I would have voted to repeal it.

I sure as hell wouldn't support anything giving Bush the chance to remain as president.

 

[Chris B]

A president who leads the world out of the Great Depression and armed his country successfully to defeat the Nazis in WWII is a completely different person from the president currently in power. Bush has the USA drowning in a war it started itself under false pretenses.

Roosevelt deserved to remain in power until the day of his death. He was, in my opion (I'm minoring in American history) the single greatest president in the history of the nation. Had the 22nd been in place during FDR's time, (and if I was an American) I would have voted to repeal it.

I sure as hell wouldn't support anything giving Bush the chance to remain as president.

I wouldn't want Bush in office after 2008 either. I was aiming more at future Presidents. The only recent Presidents who deserved to keep going after their second term were Reagan and Clinton, IMO.

 

[Halcohol]

Yeah, but it's like I said in my first post. Some presidents will focus on helping the lower class, some on the upper class, some on the economy, and some on international relations. The 22nd Amendment helps to bring in fresh presidents with different focuses and new perspectives to make the country more well-rounded.

 

[Badger]

No, not a good idea. Even with good presidents, they'll have no sense of urgency. Look at some of the Senators, the get elected on name alone and do nothing.

 

[hippy fascist]

No, they shouldn't repeal the amendment. The whole purpose of it is to instigate change in the administration every 8 years (max). Change in leadership will help any country to grow, as different leaders have different focuses. This helps the entire country grow as a whole, as opposed to increased disparity.

The only downside is that a president in his second term can basically say **** the people I'm gonna do whatever I want because they don't have to worry about re-election. The reality though is that the president controls nothing, it's the administration and the people pulling his strings so in order to be truly effective this would have to be party based not candidate. But that wouldn't work either since it's bascially a two party system...I don't know what to do

 

[Motown Marvel]

A president who leads the world out of the Great Depression and armed his country successfully to defeat the Nazis in WWII is a completely different person from the president currently in power. Bush has the USA drowning in a war it started itself under false pretenses.

well, to be fair, it was the russians who essentialy broke the nazis (and sacraficed way more lives than americans doing it)....america just kinda came in at the tail end and helped sweep the rest up....the japanese on the other hand, that was all america.