PDA

View Full Version : Should President Obama, or any President, be allowed to serve a third term?



mick silver
27th February 2015, 09:45 AM
what part of hell no don't they understand ...... it look like they want him to be king ....With the anniversary of the 22nd Amendment on Friday, Constitution Daily looks at two hot-button topics: Should a President be allowed to serve a third term? And should members of Congress and the Supreme Court have term limits like the President?


View photo
.
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/7TOk3osy6Gtqpcx31xVtYA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTI0MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/NationalConstitutionCenter/obamainaug1-475x279.jpg
The 22nd Amendment (http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-22-presidential-term-limits) brought the idea of term limits into the Constitution. When it was ratified in 1951, the amendment limited a President from effectively serving a third term, by saying that a President who won two elections can’t run a third time.The 22nd Amendment also bars a President from serving more than 10 years in office, in a case of a President who assumed office as Vice President.
For example, Vice President Gerald Ford took over for President Richard Nixon in 1974 and served more than two years as president. If Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election, Ford could not have run for re-election.
Long before the 22nd Amendment, George Washington had set an unofficial precedent in 1796 when he decided several months before the election not to seek a third term. But Alexander Hamilton and many Founders wanted a strong executive, and they opposed term limits as a concept. Thomas Jefferson and an equally influential group of Founders supported term limits for the President.
The only person to break from Washington’s precedent was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with a record-setting four election wins. Before Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1940, most Presidents didn’t try for a third term in office, let alone a third consecutive term.
Roosevelt’s distant cousin, Theodore, came the closest to breaking the precedent in 1912, when he ran for President a second time. Theodore Roosevelt succeeded President William McKinley in 1901 and had served about 7 ½ years in the White House. Theodore Roosevelt passed on running for a third consecutive term in 1908, fully aware of the Washington precedent. But after a fallout with President William Howard Taft, Roosevelt sought a third nonconsecutive term in the 1912 presidential election. He lost the election but came in second ahead of Taft. (Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman briefly considered seeking a third term but passed.)
After Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945, momentum built for a presidential term-limits amendment. Congress passed it in 1947, and it was ratified by the states in 1951.
Since then, several members of Congress have introduced bills to repeal the 22nd Amendment. The latest was offered by Representative Jose Serrano on January 4, 2013. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.j.15:)
In fact, Serrano has offered the same bill since 1997–during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The bills were tabled each time.
Representative Steny Hoyer offered similar bills in the past and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sponsored a similar bill in 1995 (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp)—during the Clinton administration. Barney Frank and Jerry Nadler also presented anti-22nd Amendment bills in the past.
There was no interest among legislators in pursuing a 22nd Amendment repeal, probably because most people are happy with term limits for the President. The odds of getting 38 states to ratify an amendment would be very, very steep.
However, the issue of term limits for Congress is a different matter. In a Gallup poll in January 2013, about 75 percent of Americans polled favored limiting terms for Congress members.
Gallup said when the same question was asked in 1994 and 1996 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/159881/americans-call-term-limits-end-electoral-college.aspx), between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans favored a constitutional amendment to limiting congressional terms.
In the 2013 poll, there was more support for congressional term limits (75 percent) than ending the Electoral College (60 percent).
And then there is the issue of term limits for judges appointed under the conditions of the Constitution’s Article III, including Supreme Court Justices.
These non-elected officials serve as long as they exhibit “good behavior” and can only be removed from office under the Constitution’s impeachment process.
The frequent debate over term limits for the Supreme Court centers on the need for an independent judiciary versus even closer ties between Justices and the Presidents who appoint them.
Scott Bomboy is the Editor-In-Chief of the National Constitution Center.
Recent Stories on Constitution Daily
Today in constitutional history: Presidents are limited to two terms in office (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/today-in-constitutional-history-presidents-are-limited-to-two-terms-in-office/)
If Abraham Lincoln had died 1861, who would have replaced him? (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/if-abraham-lincoln-had-died-1861-who-would-have-replaced-him/)
Hiram Revels: The first African-American congressman (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/hiram-revels-the-first-african-american-congressman/)
10 fascinating facts for George Washington’s real birthday (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/02/10-cool-washington-facts-on-georges-real-birthday-2/)


Politics & Government
Government
Supreme Court
22nd Amendment
Theodore Roosevelt
President Franklin D. Roosevelt
President Gerald Ford
term limits
President William Howard Taft
George Washington

Click to view comments 
View Comments (8032)

Uncle Salty
27th February 2015, 09:55 AM
Does it really matter? They are but puppets.

mick silver
27th February 2015, 10:00 AM
They maybe puppets but this country cannot take this puppet we have in office much longer ... I vote hell no

Ponce
27th February 2015, 10:02 AM
HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NOOOOOOOOOOOO......... but........does it matter?

V

madfranks
27th February 2015, 10:24 AM
Just like we got all the "miss me yet?" pictures of Bush when Obama got in office, we'll get plenty of "miss me yet?" pictures of Obama when the next puppet is installed and continues to destroy this country.

https://fyiaka411.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/bush-miss-me-yet-billboard-021020104.jpg

expat4ever
27th February 2015, 11:04 AM
Why do the people of the world need a gov at all?

Dogman
27th February 2015, 11:15 AM
Why do the people of the world need a gov at all? Probably because people have a very hard time living together in groups. This forum may serve as a good example, and that is virtual, think about how bad it would be physically in reality l

Cebu_4_2
27th February 2015, 11:20 AM
Probably because people have a very hard time living together in groups. This forum may serve as a good example, and that is virtual, think about how bad it would be physically in reality l

But would we all be talking to strangers about all the taboo stuff we talk about here in person?

Dogman
27th February 2015, 11:24 AM
But would we all be talking to strangers about all the taboo stuff we talk about here in person?

Dont know, but for real no mater how one cuts it forum members do form a community.

People if there were no rules to live by or not enforced, it would be mayhem in general on a daily basics, imo.

And in answer to the o/p

No!

Sometimes I think two terms , is one too many !

madfranks
27th February 2015, 12:08 PM
Why do the people of the world need a gov at all?

I think we're reaching a point where governments won't be needed at all. Just like the medieval social structure of kings, lords, and peasants disappeared to the modern notion of democratic government, we're close to entering an age where such government will be obsolete. Decentralization is the future, either through governments fading to irrelevancy, or governments destroying themselves in attempts to maintain control. I think within a generation or two, we will witness a small state government implode and be replaced with nothing.

singular_me
27th February 2015, 12:19 PM
was about to write the same question...

the more power structure, the more people feel entitled to rely on others to make decisions for them, it causes intellectual laziness.



Why do the people of the world need a gov at all?

singular_me
27th February 2015, 12:23 PM
showing how minds have been twisted by 4000y of slavery... everybody struggles so much that we have a communication breakdown.

the issue is cannot be resolved by using the consequences (left brain thinking) as an argument but looking into the core of the matter (using both sides of the brain).



Probably because people have a very hard time living together in groups. This forum may serve as a good example, ahat npobodynd that is virtual, think about how bad it would be physically in reality l

expat4ever
27th February 2015, 01:26 PM
Dont know, but for real no mater how one cuts it forum members do form a community.

People if there were no rules to live by or not enforced, it would be mayhem in general on a daily basics, imo.

And in answer to the o/p

No!

Sometimes I think two terms , is one too many !
I'm not so sure about that. Remember that Mexico thread not to long ago where the popo went on strike and showed everyone how they werent really needed anymore.
More and more I think people are waking up to the fact that Gov just wants more war, more laws and permits and fees to take more of everyones money. Without Gov the lazy get penalized. I get it. Then of course the millions of Gov jobs that do nothing for the most part except dream up ways they can take our money and our liberty. No way in hell I would have ever thought the Gov would force me to spend money on healthcare I dont want or need. But I could rant on for hours.
I've been to 3rd world countries that are broke. In the cities you see police presence buy as soon as you leave the major cities you could go weeks without seeing a cop and there is no chaos, just a bunch of people who work together to get stuff done. Mostly feed themselves.

singular_me
27th February 2015, 04:25 PM
that is so true. I have been to sri lanka 2 times, and stayed for about 6 months twice and I never heard of any crime in the area while there. I often had a guide like many foreigners because it makes things easier to interact with the locals and was living in a guest house. Door was unlocked all the time, and I never got robbed. Well I guess it also depends on the attitude a lot, but humility is what helps one go by in the end and the indigenous are very sensitive to that. Their generosity was amazing. Maybe things have changed now since I read a few years ago sri lanka had too rebels/guerrillas but we all know who fund them.

ps: the village I am speaking of is 140m south of Colombo between the ocean and the jungle.



I've been to 3rd world countries that are broke. In the cities you see police presence buy as soon as you leave the major cities you could go weeks without seeing a cop and there is no chaos, just a bunch of people who work together to get stuff done. Mostly feed themselves.

mick silver
28th February 2015, 07:30 AM
to tell most when to eat if not they would die ..
Why do the people of the world need a gov at all?

palani
28th February 2015, 07:49 AM
A Quietus for the Coming Struggle ... for a little perspective

https://books.google.com/books?id=SUBVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=quietus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=babwVLIhkZDIBJqkgPAG&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=quietus&f=false

http://i57.tinypic.com/2nv5isy.jpg