H.J.RES.15: Proposing 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.
Personally I don't support this bill and I do not believe it will be ratified. Do you support the liberals' attempt at abolishing presidential term limits?
There are some pros and cons to this, and i'm not sure i can really evaluate them.
pros:
president could have a longer time in office to ensure long-term policies. see: health care reform, economic reform, demilitarization, etc. all of those are necesary, but take longer than 8 years to do (so far).
cons:
this would arguably give corporations MORE influence over the country, because if they found a really good puppet they could keep him there longer. but let's be honest, they're always going to find two willing co-conspirators and get what they want anyways.
H.J.RES.15: Proposing 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.
Personally I don't support this bill and I do not believe it will be ratified. Do you support the liberals' attempt at abolishing presidential term limits?
It's not the liberals, it's one Democrat who has proposed it... and he's been doing so every two years since 1997 from what I've read
One of the good things about the democratic process is that if you get a really bad leader he won't be hanging around for long.
Also, I'm not sure I'd call this a democratic party operation, what with only one guy proposing it and it having no other sponsors.
Quote from Wikipedia »
In 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 [HJR 5] and 2011 [HJR 17], Serrano introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd Amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as president. Each resolution, with the exception of the current one, died without ever getting past the committee.
H.J.RES.15: Proposing 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.
Personally I don't support this bill and I do not believe it will be ratified. Do you support the liberals' attempt at abolishing presidential term limits?
It's not the liberals, it's one Democrat who has proposed it... and he's been doing so every two years since 1997 from what I've read
QFT.
I am not necessary against this bill per se. Presidential terms are not that big of a deal IMO. I think it would be hard for any president to get reelected to a third term anyways. I can't think of a modern president that would have won a third term anyways.
On the flipside I really think we should add an amendment limiting congress members to 2-3 terms.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Swazi you are good for laughs here. In some cases you bring good debate but the other half of the time you start the damndest threads.
anyhoo back on topic.
Its one democrat and the abolishment of presidential term limits really wouldn't be a "liberal" thing. Actually it doesn't seem to have connotations for either. Though I guess I wouldn't mind having 4 more years of Bill Clinton. though I honestly want to see how his wife will do (WOOT Hillary2016).
Either way its a single person who is putting this in and its nothing new. Its probably his pet project of some kind but doesn't have any real support on either side of the isle or from independents. Most presidents don't want to serve more than 8 years as its a very stressful job being president.
I think it would be imperative to first consider what would occur in the worst case scenario where a president could theoretically be in office for as long as he lives (or any extended period of time). If that worst possible scenario proves to be severely detrimental then advocating unlimited presidential term length probably wouldn't be a good idea.
Rather, maybe extending the overall length, say a few extra years or such, would prove more effective.
Ideally, I would like to live in a society where leaders are kept in power by means of how effective their leadership is; the better the president, the longer he can stay in office. Where if a president didn't do his job to the best of his ability, he could be replaced, and if a president was doing excellent, then he could just continue to stay in office. Sadly though, that's wistful thinking, as I have little faith that the masses would ever be smart, wise, or educated enough to know who should lead the country and for how long.
I actually think this is good ~ having a stable government and leader long term allows for more long term policy implementation. It isn't like if they're doing a bad job you couldn't axe them after 4 years anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write for Channel Fireball now! Read my CFB articles here. Read my Dies to Removal articles here. Read the definitive Red Deck Wins Primer here.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
I actually think this is good ~ having a stable government and leader long term allows for more long term policy implementation. It isn't like if they're doing a bad job you couldn't axe them after 4 years anyway.
This makes sense, but the first think the person would have to say is that jesus sent me here and probably 50% of people here in the US would vote for that person.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
LP, I'm checking your article out as well. Behind all of your swag is the brain of one of the most intelligent Magic players I've ever known. I guess that's one more thing for you to add to the wall of ego that is your Sally sig.
I can go with that. LK, you are the Mace Windu of red mages...cool, tempered logic in deliberation, but capable of just flat kicking tail when the situation warrants it.
I wouldn't mind if Our president could serve for a total of like 10-12 years, but unlimited time in office isn't really a good thing.
Even if you got rid of any form of term limit I would be very surprised if some on managed to hang on to the top spot for more than 3-4 terms.
Even in the UK where we don't have term limits the longest we have had a prime minister in power was 11 years. Whoever you put into office is going to run out of ideas/energy after a while and as long as the ballot box is still in effect they are going to get booted out at some point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
This is backwards to me. There shouldn't be such thing as a professional politician.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
I'd think I'd rather see them expand how long a presidential term is. It seems like having to campaign makes it harder to, you know, GOVERN.
I know South Korea has a 5-year presidential term and you only get one. They are thinking about making it two terms as we do, but keeping the length 5 years.
More time between elections would mean less time campaigning and more time running the country.
I wouldn't mind if Our president could serve for a total of like 10-12 years, but unlimited time in office isn't really a good thing.
Even if you got rid of any form of term limit I would be very surprised if some on managed to hang on to the top spot for more than 3-4 terms.
Even in the UK where we don't have term limits the longest we have had a prime minister in power was 11 years. Whoever you put into office is going to run out of ideas/energy after a while and as long as the ballot box is still in effect they are going to get booted out at some point.
This to me supports the idea of getting rid of term limits. Let the term run it's course. When the country is tired of he/she, they can simply vote them out and move on. I'd like to see policies actually manifest, I'm a firm believer that change takes time.
A little off topic here, but, OP, do you even play MTG? I feel like you signed up solely to troll the debate forums. I don't quite understand.
I feel ambivalent about this, and these are off-the-bat thoughts.
On one hand, repealing the 22nd Amendment could lead to having a PotUS on the roll and getting things done. On the other hand, you could have an awful PotUS not getting things done but nevertheless is elected again and again and again.
There are some other things I had in mind but the thing at the fore of my mind is the term limits could be shorter, as in one term, so that incumbent PotUSes do not play political football and simply pussyfoot about with hopes of his or her own re-election. Consider how much of the first term of (hopefully) two is utterly wasted!
The thread title's pretty misleading. One Democrat is not all Democrats. It really shouldn't have anything to do with where you lay on the political spectrum anyway.
Edit: To be clear, I'm against increasing term limits or repealing the 22nd Amendment (even in spite of the possibility that without these current term limits, some major reform might occur; it's as reasonable as no reform occurring).
Lets see if this goes anywhere before we start commenting. The House has a ton of insane legislation proposed every year.
My personal opinion isn't whether or not it's 'American' (which is a very Jingoistic measure). I'm of the opinion that term limits are necessary to avoid de facto dictatorship.
I'm against this, on the grounds that I fully support term limits for all politicians. What started out as public service, where the elected individual went to Washington, put in his time in service to his constituents, then returned to his farm or law office or whatever, has turned into a career, where individuals get entrenched and spend the remainder of their days trying to keep their job, even if they need to do so by acting in a manner that is against the best interests of the country. What you get now are people who are in Congress for 30, 40 or more years, because the US re-elects 90+% of incumbents historically, even though the approval rating for Congress is only slightly higher than that for AIDS, bubonic plague and child sex slavery; the American people are more than happy to just put the same folks back into office rather than actually do some research and determine if their representative is actually representing their interests.
That said, I would be up for extending the length of the president's term to 6 or 8 years, but with the trade-off that they can only be elected for one term. This way, they can lay out their plans for their entire term upfront at election time, they can use all of their time and effort in office working their plan, and they don't have to worry about planning a re-election campaign.
That last piece, to me, is the most-damaging part of the US political process. For sake of example (simply because it is the most recent, but with the understanding that each of our first-term Presidents over the past 30 years have done the same), Barack Obama pretty much started his re-election campaign in the fall of 2011. He spent time flying all over the country to fundraisers, going to rally events, etc., leaving his actual job duties secondary to his goal of getting another four years. If we had a system where the President got just one longer term, they could concentrate on creating their legacy without taking a 16-month sabbatical to schmooze their party's various interest groups, beg for money, and make promises that they know they have no intention (or reason) to keep in their second term.
My personal opinion isn't whether or not it's 'American' (which is a very Jingoistic measure). I'm of the opinion that term limits are necessary to avoid de facto dictatorship.
I'm not sure that's a realistic fear. I can't think of a democratic government with loose term limits where that's been a significant issue. And that's coming from a Canadian enduring Harper for seven years. We've had a few prime ministers in power for significantly longer than eight years, but the ones who have were legendary. Like the kind of guys that get put on money legendary. And they still had to earn 4-6 mandates to serve that long so they must have been doing something right to keep garnering votes for decades.
I think enforcing the arbitrary two-term limit does as much harm than good, there's something to be said for consistent leadership.
Scrapping term limits allows the time for the Government to develop policy for the long term instead of quick cycles. Policy depth is preferable to all of the gaming and postioning in trying to establish the next candidate. Concerns about de facto dictatorship are largely unwarrented for the west. Countries prone to dictatorship usally have an institutional mermory of it (russia, south america for example) and term limits have never stopped a leader inclined to dictatorship from maintaining one.
I can't think of a democratic government with loose term limits where that's been a significant issue.
What about the dictatorships in which sham elections are run? Like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".
I think you pretty much answered this for yourself: such governments are only democracies in name. They also aren't what America would be reduced to should it ever loosen its term limits.
Term limits force policy change on governments. This isn't a bad thing. I think term limits are a necessity for a democracy. Now, is two terms a reasonable limit? of that, I'm not sure.
I'd be 100% in favor of this if it meant unlimited terms for Bill Clinton.
Now, pretending Swazi didn't start the article...
I don't like the idea because it has the potential to stifle innovation and the natural evolution of the country. Someone from the opposite party could compete against with unlimited terms, but you end up stifling the incumbent party because, chances are, the incumbent will always get the nod.
I could also see the argument that term limits inspire apathy, since you know the end of the road is ahead and you don't have to compete anymore.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone could survive being president for too long just from the stress of the job.
I could also see the argument that term limits inspire apathy, since you know the end of the road is ahead and you don't have to compete anymore.
But the politician is not there to compete for re-election. They are there to do the will of the people that have elected them to the office.
If these people truly want to create a legacy that is based on their accomplishments rather than the fact they were elected time and time again, they will work hard and do what they can. Don't forget that with term limits, they will have to do something when they are out of office, so by working hard until the last fall of the gavel on their term and actually doing something beneficial for the country, they will be creating something to take to the table when they are done with their "public service."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:hjres15:
Personally I don't support this bill and I do not believe it will be ratified. Do you support the liberals' attempt at abolishing presidential term limits?
pros:
president could have a longer time in office to ensure long-term policies. see: health care reform, economic reform, demilitarization, etc. all of those are necesary, but take longer than 8 years to do (so far).
cons:
this would arguably give corporations MORE influence over the country, because if they found a really good puppet they could keep him there longer. but let's be honest, they're always going to find two willing co-conspirators and get what they want anyways.
So I guess I'm Pro.
It's not the liberals, it's one Democrat who has proposed it... and he's been doing so every two years since 1997 from what I've read
Also, I'm not sure I'd call this a democratic party operation, what with only one guy proposing it and it having no other sponsors.
Art is life itself.
QFT.
I am not necessary against this bill per se. Presidential terms are not that big of a deal IMO. I think it would be hard for any president to get reelected to a third term anyways. I can't think of a modern president that would have won a third term anyways.
On the flipside I really think we should add an amendment limiting congress members to 2-3 terms.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
anyhoo back on topic.
Its one democrat and the abolishment of presidential term limits really wouldn't be a "liberal" thing. Actually it doesn't seem to have connotations for either. Though I guess I wouldn't mind having 4 more years of Bill Clinton. though I honestly want to see how his wife will do (WOOT Hillary2016).
Either way its a single person who is putting this in and its nothing new. Its probably his pet project of some kind but doesn't have any real support on either side of the isle or from independents. Most presidents don't want to serve more than 8 years as its a very stressful job being president.
Rather, maybe extending the overall length, say a few extra years or such, would prove more effective.
Ideally, I would like to live in a society where leaders are kept in power by means of how effective their leadership is; the better the president, the longer he can stay in office. Where if a president didn't do his job to the best of his ability, he could be replaced, and if a president was doing excellent, then he could just continue to stay in office. Sadly though, that's wistful thinking, as I have little faith that the masses would ever be smart, wise, or educated enough to know who should lead the country and for how long.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
This makes sense, but the first think the person would have to say is that jesus sent me here and probably 50% of people here in the US would vote for that person.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
Even if you got rid of any form of term limit I would be very surprised if some on managed to hang on to the top spot for more than 3-4 terms.
Even in the UK where we don't have term limits the longest we have had a prime minister in power was 11 years. Whoever you put into office is going to run out of ideas/energy after a while and as long as the ballot box is still in effect they are going to get booted out at some point.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
I know South Korea has a 5-year presidential term and you only get one. They are thinking about making it two terms as we do, but keeping the length 5 years.
More time between elections would mean less time campaigning and more time running the country.
This to me supports the idea of getting rid of term limits. Let the term run it's course. When the country is tired of he/she, they can simply vote them out and move on. I'd like to see policies actually manifest, I'm a firm believer that change takes time.
A little off topic here, but, OP, do you even play MTG? I feel like you signed up solely to troll the debate forums. I don't quite understand.
Don't do it, its horrible
LOL
On one hand, repealing the 22nd Amendment could lead to having a PotUS on the roll and getting things done. On the other hand, you could have an awful PotUS not getting things done but nevertheless is elected again and again and again.
There are some other things I had in mind but the thing at the fore of my mind is the term limits could be shorter, as in one term, so that incumbent PotUSes do not play political football and simply pussyfoot about with hopes of his or her own re-election. Consider how much of the first term of (hopefully) two is utterly wasted!
The thread title's pretty misleading. One Democrat is not all Democrats. It really shouldn't have anything to do with where you lay on the political spectrum anyway.
Edit: To be clear, I'm against increasing term limits or repealing the 22nd Amendment (even in spite of the possibility that without these current term limits, some major reform might occur; it's as reasonable as no reform occurring).
My personal opinion isn't whether or not it's 'American' (which is a very Jingoistic measure). I'm of the opinion that term limits are necessary to avoid de facto dictatorship.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That said, I would be up for extending the length of the president's term to 6 or 8 years, but with the trade-off that they can only be elected for one term. This way, they can lay out their plans for their entire term upfront at election time, they can use all of their time and effort in office working their plan, and they don't have to worry about planning a re-election campaign.
That last piece, to me, is the most-damaging part of the US political process. For sake of example (simply because it is the most recent, but with the understanding that each of our first-term Presidents over the past 30 years have done the same), Barack Obama pretty much started his re-election campaign in the fall of 2011. He spent time flying all over the country to fundraisers, going to rally events, etc., leaving his actual job duties secondary to his goal of getting another four years. If we had a system where the President got just one longer term, they could concentrate on creating their legacy without taking a 16-month sabbatical to schmooze their party's various interest groups, beg for money, and make promises that they know they have no intention (or reason) to keep in their second term.
I'm not sure that's a realistic fear. I can't think of a democratic government with loose term limits where that's been a significant issue. And that's coming from a Canadian enduring Harper for seven years. We've had a few prime ministers in power for significantly longer than eight years, but the ones who have were legendary. Like the kind of guys that get put on money legendary. And they still had to earn 4-6 mandates to serve that long so they must have been doing something right to keep garnering votes for decades.
I think enforcing the arbitrary two-term limit does as much harm than good, there's something to be said for consistent leadership.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I think you pretty much answered this for yourself: such governments are only democracies in name. They also aren't what America would be reduced to should it ever loosen its term limits.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I'd be 100% in favor of this if it meant unlimited terms for Bill Clinton.
Now, pretending Swazi didn't start the article...
I don't like the idea because it has the potential to stifle innovation and the natural evolution of the country. Someone from the opposite party could compete against with unlimited terms, but you end up stifling the incumbent party because, chances are, the incumbent will always get the nod.
I could also see the argument that term limits inspire apathy, since you know the end of the road is ahead and you don't have to compete anymore.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone could survive being president for too long just from the stress of the job.
Want to be a better Magic player? Read the rulings forum and check out the comprehensive rules!
But the politician is not there to compete for re-election. They are there to do the will of the people that have elected them to the office.
If these people truly want to create a legacy that is based on their accomplishments rather than the fact they were elected time and time again, they will work hard and do what they can. Don't forget that with term limits, they will have to do something when they are out of office, so by working hard until the last fall of the gavel on their term and actually doing something beneficial for the country, they will be creating something to take to the table when they are done with their "public service."