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  • It does more harm than good and should be repealed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 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

  1. #1
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:56 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,438

    22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    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.

  2. #2
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Every President becomes a lame duck sooner or later, term limits or no.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  3. #3
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:56 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,438

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Every President becomes a lame duck sooner or later, term limits or no.
    I'd rather it be natural than arbitrary.

  4. #4
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    We have term limits - always have. They are called regular elections.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #5
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,202

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    We have term limits - always have. They are called regular elections.
    Which is generally what I think, except with Presidents. I don't want someone with free reign over our foreign policy and their finger on the button for 25 years.

    Theoretically, Mubarak was elected. But he was elected time and time again. Granted, this isn't Egypt.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  6. #6
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    I would much rather see an Amendment for term limits for the Congress...
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  7. #7
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:56 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,438

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiefgator View Post
    I would much rather see an Amendment for term limits for the Congress...
    If we're going to have one, we should have both, yes... but I'd rather have neither.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Hell I could be happy throwing out the whole re-election of a President, give him one 6 year or 8 year term, and that's it, one term.

  9. #9
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Hell I could be happy throwing out the whole re-election of a President, give him one 6 year or 8 year term, and that's it, one term.
    Good point, in such a situation you'd have guys spending less time campaigning and more time actually doing ****.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  10. #10
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:59 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,761

    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.
    The XXII Amendment, as you know, was passed in order to keep a particular administration from mimicking a monarchy. The advantage that I see in the amendment is that, if the sitting president is lucky enough to receive a super majority in his second term, it becomes all in. A two term limit however keeps a president in line with the rest of the country, giving him his first term to introduce and attempt to pass his agenda; in the case of a mixed congress: being more the democratic approach.

    I don't think that at the time the XXII Amendment was passed it was overblown. We must remember that WWI put an end to empire, but the crash of '29 reintroduced a new age of despots in Europe, and at the time, I'm sure that Americans wanted to take charge of their government to put any anxieties to rest.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •