so does anyone else think that a 2 temr limit on presidency is a dumb thing? It seems like whenever we get a president the people like (Clinton ), we can only keep him in office for 2 terms, where as if the limit were 3 or 4 terms, our country would be pretty different right now...for the better i would assume. the 2 term limit just seems like a cry baby (old school) republican tactic that ended up biting them in the ass when Ike came around. I know im not the most qualified to argue about this hence why i woudl love to see what you all thought about it as well
But if we didn't have a limit Bush could hang around for another 5-10 years. So yeah, 2 term limit is good, imo. Keeps presidents from turning into rulers for life like FDR was going for.
well he did die . and if a president is a good leader, why should he have to leave office and be replaced by a less competent one (clinton and bush ). I'm not saying let a person stay in leadership for a long time, but at least 3 terms or something to that affect.
Two terms protects the minority. Bush would probably get re-elected in term three, but those of us who think he's a simpering git would be pretty upset.
A two term limit at least forces the American Public to consider more thoughtfully the ideals for which a president stands.
Eight years is a long time, and by far the accepted limit before FDR. The two term limit was in force by tradition, if not by law, when Washington decided not to run.
It protects our Republic from becoming a Monarchy, either by law or by default.
Yes, I think 2 terms is the right limit.
In Germany we had a real dumb ass called Kohl as Bundeskanzler from 1982 to 1998. In that time he managed to take Germany to great financial crisis that still isn´t resolved. Also he is involved in a corruption affair that still isn´r resolved.
another good idea is term limits for congressmen! some of them have been in there for thirty to forty years like robert byrd. we should limit congressmen to about three terms or so.
off topic, i know, but its something that might help our government be less corrupt
"Living for the future is more important than trying to avenge the past...i guess." -Puck
Did George washington actually resign after 2 terms because he felt he should establish a 2 term limit or because he wasnt actually running the country well? I remember him not having the best two terms in office dealing with everyone...I still think that if we had a really good leader then we should be able to keep him. to me it seems like most of the presidents we have suck at the job and when we get a good one we should keep him there for a while
HOw i understood the whole "two-term" law for presidents is prevent that one indiviual from being too powerful. If we keep someone in the top seat for awhile, mabye the power that he has will break him and then the US will just turn into a dictatorship. Though there is nothing wrong with a dictatorship government. I see the US government as a way of doing Capitialism the most perfect way. We arent the country that has the perfect government, we are the country with the perfect way of allowing people to succeed and fail. Plus the US is still a very young country.
MrFelony wrote:Did George washington actually resign after 2 terms because he felt he should establish a 2 term limit or because he wasnt actually running the country well? I remember him not having the best two terms in office dealing with everyone...I still think that if we had a really good leader then we should be able to keep him. to me it seems like most of the presidents we have suck at the job and when we get a good one we should keep him there for a while
washington also retired because he was 65 years old and an ill man. he knew he could not govern as an invalid so he retired. thus, he set the precedent for a president serving two terms. the symbolism for this is that washington voluntarily relinquished power, so subsiquent presidents followed his model of not becoming a "king," that is, until FDR.
so that was that basis for the two term limit precedent and idea
"Living for the future is more important than trying to avenge the past...i guess." -Puck
One can still follow washington's role of relinquishing power and still serve 3-4 terms. did FDR actually want to become a "life long leader" or are you comparing him to one?. I think the main problem is that we dont really have any consistant way of having good leaders run for president so we are stuck with havign to choose the least crappy of the bunch . and there is nothing wrong with an enlightened monarch in my opinion. One leader can probably run a country a lot more smoothly than te beauracracy we have now. and how would our country change if our government didnt have to rearange itself everytime a new leader was elected into office
the only problem with "enlightened" monarchs is that they tend to abuse power and disregard the rights of their citizens. Hobbes said that in order to have peace, one must surrender their rights to a "Levaithan," or absolute king, so he can keep people secure. i don't think its a good idea to surrender rights for security.
i think the two term limit is a good idea and should be extended to congressmen. the government keeps shifting leaders so no one person can usurp too much power. that is the bullwork for our republic.
"Living for the future is more important than trying to avenge the past...i guess." -Puck
actually hte enlightened monarch was one who served his people. the ideal enlightened monarch gave their citizens rights and what not. most monarchs who were "enlightened" werent actually enlighted or like Elizabeth the great, turned away from "enlightenment" into a big bitch. Its like our ideal president, communist ideal, et cetera. I think the best example of a monarch was Henry the Great (no sure if i got the name right), but he was the one that revitalized France and was the only monarch whose statue was not torn down during the french revolution.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), 32nd President of the United States (1933-1945), the longest-serving holder of the office and the only man to be elected President more than twice, was one of the central figures of 20th century history. Born to wealth and privilege, he overcame a crippling illness to place himself at the head of the forces of reform. His family and close friends called him Frank. To the public he was usually known as FDR.
According to many historians, Roosevelt's inspirational leadership helped the U.S. recover from the Great Depression, but others dispute this claim arguing that Roosevelt's economic policies actually slowed recovery. In the build up to the Second World War, he prepared the U.S. to be the "Arsenal of Democracy" against Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire, but aspects of his leadership, particularly what is seen as his naïve attitude toward Joseph Stalin, are criticised by some historians. Finally, his vision of an effective international organization to preserve peace was brought to fruition as the United Nations after his death.
Wikipedia wrote:Henry IV (French: Henri IV) (December 13, 1553 – May 14, 1610), called the Great (French: le Grand), was the first of the Bourbon kings of France, reigning from 1589 until 1610. As a Protestant he was involved in the Wars of Religion before acceding to the throne; to become King of France he converted to Catholicism and signed the Edict of Nantes, granting religious liberties to the Protestants and effectively ending the civil war. One of the most popular French kings (both during and after his reign), showing great care for the welfare of his subjects, as well as displaying an unusual religious tolerance for the time, he was murdered by a disturbed man, Ravaillac. In France Henry IV was (and still is) informally nicknamed le bon roi Henri ("good king Henry").
I got the right king too btw
and here is some stuff on enlightened absolutism
wikipedia wrote:Enlightened monarchs were rulers who distinguished themselves from traditional monarchs in the way they governed. Specifically, Enlightened monarchs embraced the principles of the Enlightenment, especially it's emphasis upon rationality, and applied them to their kingdoms. In order to be considered "enlightened", they must allow religious toleration, freedom of speech and press, and the right to hold private property. They must foster the arts, sciences, and educations. Above all, they must not be arbitrary in their rules; they must obey the laws and enforce them fairly for all subjects.
Although their reigns were influenced by Enlightenment ideas, their beliefs about royal power were often similar to those of traditional monarchs. Many enlightened monarchs believed that they had the right to govern by birth.
In effect, the monarchs ruled with the intent of improving the lives of their subjects in order to strengthen or reinforce their authority. For example, the abolition of serfdom in Europe was achieved by enlightened rulers. In the spirit of Enlightened absolutism, Emperor Joseph II of the Holy Roman Empire once said: "Everything for the people, nothing by the people".
Regarding the whole "good" president and "enlightened" leader topic, those adjectives are too subjective to be reliable conditions of keeping someone in power. One man's villian is another's hero. Two terms sound about right to me, and if after 8 years we can't find a suitable person to lead the country amongst all the citizens, then something must be seriously wrong, either with the people or the system...
So a president steps down... His Vice President will run.
Who's in power personally doesn't really affect the system as much as you might think. When you get right down to it, each politician pushes the views of the party backing them. It's not likely that their decisions were derived from their own personal judgments very often.
I think that the two term limit is good because it would limit outsider access to presidental authority. For example, how Halliburton is all up in the Oval office now getting whatever they want.
), we can only keep him in office for 2 terms, where as if the limit were 3 or 4 terms, our country would be pretty different right now...for the better i would assume. the 2 term limit just seems like a cry baby (old school) republican tactic that ended up biting them in the ass when Ike came around. I know im not the most qualified to argue about this hence why i woudl love to see what you all thought about it as well 
