MovieChat Forums > Politics > Ammend the Constitution on Presidential ...

Ammend the Constitution on Presidential Term Limits!

posted 2 years ago by Connie93 (826)
23 replies | jump to latest

Bill Clinton was a successful two term president; people wanted him back, not the Wish version of Hillary.

Barack Obama was a popular (albeit unsuccessful) two term preisdent; people want him back, not the Wish version of his VP, in Sleepy Joe.

I get why the 22nd ammendment was passed, to stop one man (or woman) holdilng power for too long but maybe it needs to be changed into a 'can only serve two consecutive terms; cannot run for a third consecutive term, but can run again thereafter'.

That way, you avoid one man holding office forever, and remove the benefits of incumbancy every 8 years at least; and yet a successful president can return if they so wish.

Thoughts?

[–] UncleRuckis (2550) 2 years ago

If anything, the two Term limit needs to be expanded to include Congress.

[–] Connie93 (826) 2 years ago

Extend the term of Congressmen to 4 years instead of two, so that they're not in campaign mode all the time; reduce the senate term from 6 to 4; and yes, bring in term limits; 12 years max.

[–] JoWilli (15087) 2 years ago

JoWilli agrees, here is my idea:

President - 8 years
Senate - 12 years
House - 12 years
Supreme Court - 15 years

age limit for any position will be 78.

[–] CraigC (6956) 2 years ago

Agree, except the Supreme Court. There's a reason why that's a lifetime appointment.

[–] JoWilli (15087) 2 years ago

never understood a lifetime appointment. Ruth Bader was 87 when she passed. was she cognizant of anything going on after 80? she was in and out of the hospital dozens of times and prob missed a lot of cases.

it just seems odd that we let 80 yr olds make laws that can last generations or a lifetime.

[–] CraigC (6956) 2 years ago

I do think Ginsberg should've stepped down long before she died.

They don't make laws, they rule on them. The point was so that it was not a political position. It's a position you presumably earn through your career's deeds, not one you "run for".

[–] JoWilli (15087) 2 years ago

yes, its earned and well deserved, but there is a point in everyones life that they will get old and have diminished brain activity.

there is a reason why companies dont hire 80+ as CEO's, its because they are old and cant think properly.

the CEO of Amazon is 54.

just saying we dont need 80 yr olds in congress making decisions that can last generations.

[–] CraigC (6956) 2 years ago

Then maybe cognitive testing instead of term limits. We can start with that dipshit in the White House.

[–] JoWilli (15087) 2 years ago

sounds good to me, but we both know that will never happen cause he would fail big time.

[–] chilidoggg (13044) 2 years ago

"They don't make laws, they rule on them"

A distinction without a difference.

It seems odd to want limits on how many times someone can win elections, but want the someone else to never face reelection/reappointment.

[–] CraigC (6956) 2 years ago

The Supreme Court is a check on the executive and legislative branches. There's a huge difference.

Clearly the founders were smarter than you are. Not surprising.

[–] chilidoggg (13044) 2 years ago

"The people that wrote these rules were a lot smarter than you."

The founders did not put term limits for the House, Senate, or Executive in the Constitution in 1787.

Yes they made federal judges lifetime appointments. But Thomas Jefferson was apoplectic with John Marshall's creation of "Judicial Review" in Marbury vs Madison, which suggests to me that Jefferson would NOT have wanted lifetime appointments. I guess Jefferson was a moron.

There's really nothing "magical" about the Supreme Court. It's just a matter that "someone has to make the final call" on some issue that had already had 2 similar cases go all the way through 2 different Appellate Jurisdictions (say, the Ninth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit) with irreconcilable outcomes, all decided by judges approved by the Senate, presumably capable... and typically it's not just two cases in 2 jurisdictions, but several.

[–] CraigC (6956) 2 years ago

No magic. The lifetime appointment was intended to keep politics out of the court. Presumably for people who had ALREADY dedicated their lives to the law. They are supposed to be above politics. These days we have a scary number of activist judges.

Political positions were never meant to be lifetime career choices. The lack of term limits is probably the biggest major contributor to the corruption we have now.

[–] chilidoggg (13044) 2 years ago

You bring absolutely nothing to the table.

https://www.amazon.com/How-win-arguments-William-Rusher/dp/B0006DWKJU/ref=sr_1_2?crid=112G6C57UC48O&keywords=william+rusher&qid=1654277172&s=books&sprefix=william+rusher%2Cstripbooks%2C150&sr=1-2

Used paperback available for $6.55.

You're welcome.

[–] JoWilli (15087) 2 years ago

The founders did not put term limits for the House, Senate, or Executive in the Constitution in 1787.

thats because the average life span was 40 to 60, they never thought people would be living into their 80's and 90's.

Chuck Grassley
Current Age (as of April 2022): 88 years, 7 months, 12 days

Dianne Feinstein
Current Age (as of April 2022): 88 years, 10 months, 7 days

Robert Byrd was 91.

like I have said before, we dont need 80+ making laws that can last generations.

[–] CraigC (6956) 2 years ago

No. A few points.

1) Popularity doesn't mean anything. The point is that no single person remain in power long enough to become dangerous.

2) The people that wrote these rules were a lot smarter than you.

3) You're Australian, so it's really none of your business anyway.

Bill Clinton was not successful. Obama was a fucking train wreck, superseded only by Biden.

We absolutely need term limits for Congress. We've got some horrible dinosaurs in there that have been bleeding the American people for their entire adult lives. 12yrs sounds good.

PS, it's the House of Representatives and the Senate, both of which make up the two houses of Congress.

[–] SamNoyoun (4456) 2 years ago

"Bill Clinton was not successful"

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[–] CraigC (6956) 2 years ago

If you disagree, I know I'm on the right track.

[–] SamNoyoun (4456) 2 years ago

"The US went from having the largest budget deficit in American history ($290 billion) in 1992 when Clinton was elected to having a budget surplus of $127 billion when he left office in 2001. 22.5 million new jobs were created and unemployment dropped from 7.5% when Clinton took office to 4.0% by the end of his second term, the lowest in 30 years. The poverty rate dropped to 11.8% in 1999, which was the lowest it had been since 1979."

https://c.tenor.com/TQrrqz7Wb2QAAAAd/thats-terrible-aw.gif

[–] space1999 (725) 2 years ago

Your so gay Craig.

I'm glad I have guns. My family will fight you.

[–] CraigC (6956) 2 years ago

Are you high???

[–] Padeen (6459) 2 years ago

Why do you care when you don't even live here, supposedly.

[–] chilone (17256) 2 years ago

It should be one, six year term and that's it. Then they wouldn't spend their whole time working on getting re-elected.