View Poll Results: 22nd Amendment?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • It serves a valuable purpose and should be kept

    11 44.00%
  • It does more harm than good and should be repealed

    12 48.00%
  • Other

    2 8.00%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

  1. #11
    Professor
    Luna Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    The 22nd Amendment does a disservice to the country. If you get a good president you should be allowed to re-elect her or him as many times as you want as long as she remains healthy. It should be possible to disqualify a president from running again because of poor health. The 22nd Amendment was created in response to Roosevelt's winning a 4th term, despite being too unhealthy to complete it. Replace the 22nd with some kind of mandatory physical checkup.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?
    Considering the likely outcome this November, one can only hope that's the case.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  3. #13
    Student Justice For All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    192

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    I dislike the 22nd ammendment, if you have an amazing leader and it's the will of the people they should be voted in as many times as the people want. FDR was an amazing leader and pushed our country to be the true super power that it is today. If Bill Clinton had a third and possibly 4th term we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are in today instead would probably still have surpluses each year and the economy would be thriving.

    Edit- And yes I think the two term limit hinders the president to play it safe when the country really needs a leader not a compromiser and two face.
    Last edited by Justice For All; 04-15-12 at 06:53 PM.
    "Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it’s the sand of the coliseum. He’ll bring them death – and they will love him for it.” - Senator Gracchus (Gladiator)

  4. #14
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,843
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    I like term limits for the presidency. I think one of the most important things George Washington ever did was decline to run for reelection for a third term.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  5. #15
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,399

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice For All View Post
    I dislike the 22nd ammendment, if you have an amazing leader and it's the will of the people they should be voted in as many times as the people want. FDR was an amazing leader and pushed our country to be the true super power that it is today. If Bill Clinton had a third and possibly 4th term we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are in today instead would probably still have surpluses each year and the economy would be thriving.

    Edit- And yes I think the two term limit hinders the president to play it safe when the country really needs a leader not a compromiser and two face.
    Many people feel that the seeds for the current/recent recession were actually planted by Clinton.

  6. #16
    Student Justice For All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    192

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Many believe it goes back as far as Reagan, but atleast we wouldn't have had the big bush tax cuts, Medicare part D, and likely wouldnt have invaded Iraq and stayed in Afghanistan for a shorter period under Clinton.
    "Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it’s the sand of the coliseum. He’ll bring them death – and they will love him for it.” - Senator Gracchus (Gladiator)

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,479

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

    I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

    Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

    And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.
    I have thought about this quite often and considered possibly a one term POTUS of 5 years or only allowing a run for re-election that is non consecutive.

    I have not heard of any serious attempt to amend the 22nd amendment.
    Last edited by Turin; 04-15-12 at 08:04 PM.

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    I would favor 4 2 year terms. 4 years is too long to be stuck with a crappy president, and they may preform better if reelection was every 2 years.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,479

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I would favor 4 2 year terms. 4 years is too long to be stuck with a crappy president, and they may preform better if reelection was every 2 years.
    Hmmm it seems is not enough time to know and we would have to deal with elections every two years.

  10. #20
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    Hmmm it seems is not enough time to know and we would have to deal with elections every two years.
    I'm fine with having a presidential election every 2 years if it means we have shorter terms for bad presidents. We have midterms anyway so I don't see it as adding much more of a burden on people.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •