Do you support the 22nd Amendment

[serryjw]

or would you repeal it given the chance?

[Kire]

1. Term Limits?

I support it

[MissWaverly]

2. Think it should be 1 term limited to six years

there is a certain advantage to being an incumbent and some of our worst presidential experiences have come in the 2nd term. (ie Nixon/Watergate) AND it would keep a politician
from keeping in the campaign mode while in office.

[serryjw]

11. I like term limits

The Founders thought that politicians should go back to industry after serving.
ONE 6 year term for Prez/VP
TWO 6 year term for Senators
CHANGE the REPS to THREE FOUR year terms
FEDERAL/SCOTUS JUSTICES serve 20 years ( mandatory retirement from the bench)
TEN year WAIT to LOBBY after serving in Federal Positions

[MissWaverly]

12. Although I understand what you are saying, I disagree

I can see how this would be a good idea but my senator Barbara Mikulski does an outstanding job and has been one of the few that has stood up to this administration. We need the Rep. Murthas, the Sen. Mikulskis and the Sen. Byrds, they are all that stand between us and the abyss
right now.

[serryjw]

14. When you give up Barbara Mikulski

You also give up Delay, Frist and Stevens. Sacrifice is a bitch!

[MissWaverly]

26. Their problem is their greed not the length of time served

What I see is a limited term with no stature for service so that we would then have corporations
spewing out loyal robots for limited terms who would then go back to their real job at the
company after their term expired, it would be worse than we have now.

[serryjw]

32. Get the feeling the deck is stacked

against us?

[MissWaverly]

37. I think it has to do more with follow the money

campaigns that are publicly financed would take the air out of a lot of the lobbyists influence,
I remember reading how Bobby Kennedy went to LBJ for help with campaign money. He said that
he needed 1 million for his senate campaign in 1964 and he wanted Johnson to help with money
from the DNC.

[serryjw]

41. Publically funded

national elections is the only answer or we will keep fighting the corporate influence. Every American can afford $3/year form democracy

[MissWaverly]

42. Heck, I am paying 25 a month with my democracy bond now

$3.00 is not even a blip on the radar.

[serryjw]

44. $300 million/year

X4 years.We could easily election congress and the president and get corporate greed out of our elections. It would be an uphill battle to pull this off. THEY would clain 1st amendment rights!!!

[MissWaverly]

45. well, let's beat the drum for this once the dems get in

there is a throw the bums out mood across the country, I have a feeling there will be many
new faces in Congress this year.

[GrumpyGreg]

13. Fantastic! In the case of president and VP they spend the last 2 years

of the first term working on getting elected for the second term.

Your idea would give 6 good (or bad) years without self-serving decisions.

[serryjw]

15. And saving a $billions

on re-election.

[GrumpyGreg]

22. That too !

[Hosnon]

16. I don't necessarily agree that is what the Founders truly were going for.

They didn't invite ordinary people into the conventions and they certainly didn't bow out of politics and return to industry.

I'm somewhere in the middle between electing the common man and electing the guy who actually knows what he's doing. There's a time and place for both.

As for term limits: I'm divided on the issue. As it stands now, I believe that the more local the election, the less contraints on re-election there should be. As power increases and the official becomes more removed from the voters, term limits should probably come into play.

[ruggerson]

17. Your idea

would mean that no one serving in an elective office in Washington would have any institutional history or wisdom that goes beyond 12 years.

Term limits are not the answer. Election and campaign finance reform are. Put challengers on an equal footing with incumbents.

[nickinSTL]

21. absolutely.

Term limits are, IMO, a bad idea.

Term limits already exist. They're called elections.

If someone isn't doing their job, or is abusing their power, the people have the option of voting them out. The fact that long-term incumbents often aren't voted out doesn't mean we need term limits, it means that we need educated voters and an even playing field financially, so the voters are more likely to vote for the best candidate instead of the incumbent/familiar name/etc.

[serryjw]

24. Few have wisdom but to respond to your post

I didn't say a rep could not be a senator, VP or Prez. They just can't continue in their job beyond the term.

[rosesaylavee]

18. All good ideas!

:thumbsup:

[DeSwiss]

19. Precisley.

One term - 6 years. Out of the Park

nuff said....

[Totally Committed]

34. Change the term of office. -- I definitely agree....

I term -- 6 years, period. No incumbency; no constantly running for a second term; no need to kiss-ass anyone to raise money for a second run... just plain and simple governing for the people. Let the VP start running at the 4-yr. mark.

TC

[madville]

3. The only problem

The only problem I have with it is that it doesn't apply to Senators or Reps. Senators should be limited to two terms and reps five or six terms.

[MrModerate]

4. Six years -- one term . . .

Mitigates the "lame duck" syndrome, possibly frees the "better angels of our nature," and guards against a major course change upon accession to a second term.

Might want to offset it from congressional races (odd numbered years, perhaps) so one tranche of Senators isn't always running in a presidential year.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. I absolutely suppot the 22nd Amendment

I hope Cheney and Gonzales haven't found a secret, hidden clause in it that will permit a war president to set it aside.

[FILAM23]

6. I would like to change it

One 6 year term for president
One 6 year term for Senatore, may be re-elected but not consecutively
Three 2 tear terms for representatives, may be re-elected but not more
then three consecutive.
Plus need at least 20 years federal service to get pension

[ruggerson]

7. Repeal it

Term limits are undemocratic. Which is why the Founders did not have them.

We have term limits. They are called elections.

[DeSwiss]

25. I don't think term limits are "undemocratic."

The founders didn't have a number of things in the constitution at beginning. Like freedom for slaves nor their right to vote, senators weren't elected by popular vote, nor did women have the right to vote. The amendments changed all that. The constitution should be a living documents of our hopes and aspirations. Not a relic suitable for a museum.

And I think senators and reps should be limited as well. Incumbency has proven to have a stultifying effect upon our government. Look at Senator Stevens and Bryd with their infamous "secret holds" on legislation. What can be more undemocratic than to secretly withhold legislation from debate that let's the citizens know what the government is doing with OUR money? And even though in theory its possible to rid ourselves of incumbants, its seldom done. Too many favors are owed to those who stay there the longest.

Here we have people who barely even understand computers who making decisions about the internets that could very likely curtail their use and availability. Certainly it will most probably make computer and internet access costs more. Money is what they're all about. These guys are beholdened to the large corporations and they to them. Term limits could help to break that hold. I agree we need some experience, its a question of how much. But we alao need regular infusions of new blood. Hell I'm getting old myself (54). So I know from which I speak. I wouldn't elect me! And incumbancy is also a way of saying, "hey we're the best you can get. Don't elect anyone else because there isn't anyone better out there."

But we've seen in the past 24 hours that this is not true from the words of Rocky and Keith. There ARE others that would be better. I agree that term limits can be like a storm. They would cause upheaval and some damage. But in nature storms are necessary to rid the earth of the old, decrepit and unhealthy so that the ground can be prepared for the new. Term limits would do the same. And we're a part of nature too.

[Old and In the Way]

8. I'd be totally for repeal....if

I had confidence in our electoral system. Today, it would be possible for Bush to be Presidente For Life the way the voting machines are rigged. Seriously, why should I not be able to vote for a President/Senator/Representitive as many times as he/she chooses to run, if they are doing, in my opinion, a superior job for me? I think term limits are undemocratic...that's part of the reason why we are in such a mess today. See how many of theose "Contract on America" Republicans ran on term limits...and, of course, have forgotten about that pledge.

[serryjw]

9. You answered your own question

We have an ignorant, ill-informed, complacent, highly susceptible to brainwashing populous.

[MissWaverly]

10. I have no objections to Senator or Members of House

serving consecutive terms since their constituents have the power to boot them, but with our
elections process the way it is in this country, we need to have a president who is above the
poticial sleaze that comes from the campaign trail, we want him above the wink, nudge of
campaigning and sucking up campaign dollars & the favors that go with them. One election; then
you serve the voter and then you are out.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. Bill Clinton president for life. It's an anti-populist president law, FDR

was a great man--so the GOP outlawed hum.

[onenote]

27. FDR was dead two years before the amendment was proposed

so I don't think you can say it was an attempt to "outlaw" FDR. And the amendment didn't even apply to Truman (although he chose not to run for a third term, the amendment would have allowed it).

Undoubtedly, the fact that the repubs had swept to control of the House and Senate in the 1946 elections helped push the 22nd amendment. But the repubs alone weren't responsible for it. It took 2/3 vote to get the amendment to the states (meaning it needed Democratic support) and it was ratified by 41 of 48 states.

[rep the dems]

23. I support the 22nd Amendment. Imagine if Reagan had been able

to run for a 3rd term in 1988. We all know what a monster he was, but most of America did not, and still does not. Perhaps only allowing one 6 year term would prevent them from doing some bad things, but I love Presidential Election years and would hate to have to wait 6 years in between each one.

[NJ Democrats]

28. Repeal it!

I'm against any term-limits, I say let them run and run until they loose. But if there HAD to be term-limits, I would say 2 terms of 6 yrs or 3 terms of 4.

[clark08]

29. yes I

support it wholeheartedly

[MrSlayer]

30. I think one six or seven year term should be the law.

Because the President spends the last two years of his first term campaigning for re-election and not getting very much done.

[MissWaverly]

38. I totally agree

and I don't want him supporting a bill just because it plays to his base, he should be
worrying about the country not his campaign supporters.

[SeaBob]

31. Term Limits

1 term for 6 years, then out. BY the way while your at it eradicate the electoral college

[Kal Belgarion]

33. Repeal it

Elections are all the term limits we need, provided we have more even campaign funding and credible voting machines. If the elections are fair, then we don't need any term limits.

I would have taken four more years of Regan for four more years of Clinton. Lord knows he was popular enough to win again, and that he wasn't ready to leave the White House.

To say that you like term limits because you're afraid of a popular Republican getting more time is almost silly. Popular Dems would have the same right to run for more terms if the people want to give them to them.

I'm all for repealing #22.

[ruggerson]

35. Agreed 100%

n/t

[Blue_Tires]

36. i'm for term limits for congresscritters as well

ironically, i still remember in the 80s and early 90s when term limits was a big GOP promise if they ever took control of congress...funny how all that talk fell by the wayside after 1994

[sutz12]

39. Keep it. As is.

Add a term limits amendment for Senate and Congress.

Also, add that only one retirement plan is allowed. Now, they get several, from each office they have held.

[LWolf]

40. Interesting discussion.

No unconditional changes, from my perspective, but some of the suggestions are intriguing.

One 6 year term for president? I'd go for that one, if we could figure out a way to keep him/her accountable to voters while in office, with no re-election coming up.

I started thinking about one longer term for all elected offices, with no re-election fundraising and distraction to keep them from doing their jobs, and realized that some sort of accountability would be needed across the board.

If you elect someone to one longer term, and they are a disaster, it's a longer disaster before you can elect a replacement, in many cases.

How can we make "lame ducks" accountable, not to corporate sponsors, but to voters?

[MissWaverly]

43. no confidence vote permits re-elections

I don't think this should be done on a whim but we should have a safeguard, our present congress has shown impeachment can be checked by out of bounds executive branch