Presidential Term Limits

[kgiese]

The Constitution of the United States of America states that the President may only serve two terms in office. Knowing this fact should something be done to limit Bill and Hillary Clinton serving eight more years in office?


Amendment 22 -

Presidential Term Limits
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

source: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am22.html

[MrZach]

it doesn't say anything about spouses...

[kgiese]

That's the point. It doesn't say anything, so do you feel that it should? Since, Bill and Hillary Clinton could potentially be back in the White House as President. Does this give too much power to one family? Should there be limits on a family? or a couple?

[colecrowe]

I don't believe in term limits. That's one thing I really disagree with RP on. I look at it this way: Ron Paul believes that money and free speech/freedom isn't the problem so there shouldn't be campaign finance limits or restrictions (I believe term limits is a freedom thing also. I don't know if you'd call it free speech or not, though)--he says, rightly, that the problem is the tax system that has to get gamed, the corporate welfare, etc. that has to be bought, and just the corruption, unconstitutionality of what our representatives do. If that stuff didn't exist, campaign finance wouldn't be a problem.

I believe the same thing about term limits. If the people are apathetic and stupid and therefore elect morons into office, term limits will not fix the problem. You still leave the base, major problem unaddressed. However, with term limits, the good people will be booted out.

And people will still be stupid and apathetic--so they will still vote morons in from the major parties.

That is the key: the legislators and executives in this country are not the one's with the real power: the real power is in the 2 major parties and the policy makers.

It's a panacea that will distract people from the main, real problems that need to be solved (it's a much easier bandaid though).

**********

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: People have, extremely unfairly!, criticised Ron Paul because he supported and voted for term limits, but then stayed in office way beyond what those term limits would have been. Well, and Ron Paul has also said this I think--VOLUNTARY term limits would be horrible--in many ways and cases, only the good legislators would ever leave--the dishonorable ones that are there for the perks and pensions, etc., would not leave. So the consequence would be horrible for the country. Only mandatory term limits would work. So that criticism is the weakest argument against Paul ever--but people push it all the time! Ron Paul must say very clearly what I said above--and then ALWAYS say, "And anyway--I have never used a congressional junket and I have always refused to partake in the congressional pension plan! And if I left voluntarilly, my replacement would do both of those things!"

[colecrowe]

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: People have, extremely unfairly!, criticised Ron Paul because he supported and voted for term limits, but then stayed in office way beyond what those term limits would have been. Well, and Ron Paul has also said this I think--VOLUNTARY term limits would be horrible--in many ways and cases, only the good legislators would ever leave--the dishonorable ones that are there for the perks and pensions, etc., would not leave. So the consequence would be horrible for the country. Only mandatory term limits would work. So that criticism is the weakest argument against Paul ever--but people push it all the time! Ron Paul must say very clearly what I said above--and then ALWAYS say, "And anyway--I have never used a congressional junket and I have always refused to partake in the congressional pension plan! And if I left voluntarilly, my replacement would do both of those things!"

[theczar1776]

Why not get rid of fixed term limits and say maybe like:
1st Majority
2nd 50%
3rd 60%
4th 65%
5th 75%
+th 85%
so somebody if is REALLY good they can stay ?
thoughts anyone

[LEK]

Last night I had the strangest dream. It was so real, so life-like and so vivid I woke up in a cold sweat. Let me describe it to you briefly...

1. Hillary wins the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States.

2. Naturally, she wants to choose as her running mate some one with a lot of knowledge and experience in government and foreign affairs, someone who is a seasoned campaigner who could bring a lot of strength to the ticket. Who better than Bill, her husband?

3. Hill and Bill go on to win the election in November and the Democrats maintain control of the House and the Senate

4. Hillary is sworn in as President on January 20, 2009. The next day, after all the inauguration parties are over, she calls a press conference to make an announcement: She is resigning as President! Bill, as the Vice President, immediately becomes President!

This is all perfectly legal under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, for it states that no person "may be elected as president more than twice".
Bill is not being elected for a third term but is merely serving out the remainder of Hillary's term--all 4 years of it.

5. But wait! There's more! The following day Bill calls a press conference to make an announcement. He has chosen someone to fill the now vacant Vice President position. Guess who he picks? Why, Hillary, of course!

Now it's your turn to stay awake while I get some sleep.

[Conservative Christian]

Congressional term limits are foolish and self-defeating.

For every constitutionalist like Ron Paul in politics, there are hundreds of bottom-feeders who want to pray on the taxpayer to enrich themselves and their cronies.

If Ron Paul and the tiny minority of constitutionalists term limit themselves to 12 years in the House of Representatives, for instance, then that means they'll be gone in 12 short years. And there's almost zero chance that another constitutionalist will take their place. A bottom-feeder will almost certainly fill the void.

Whereas if the bottom-feeders get term limited after 12 years, there will be numerous other bottom-feeders lined up to take their place, who will woo ignorant voters with promises of "free" government programs etc.

If anything, term limits will only make the problem WORSE, by ensuring that the occasional rare constitutionalist gets sent home after 12 years. Whereas if there were no term limits, we might be able to hold onto him for 20 or 30 years.

[youngbuck]

Last night I had the strangest dream. It was so real, so life-like and so vivid I woke up in a cold sweat. Let me describe it to you briefly...

1. Hillary wins the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States.

2. Naturally, she wants to choose as her running mate some one with a lot of knowledge and experience in government and foreign affairs, someone who is a seasoned campaigner who could bring a lot of strength to the ticket. Who better than Bill, her husband?

3. Hill and Bill go on to win the election in November and the Democrats maintain control of the House and the Senate

4. Hillary is sworn in as President on January 20, 2009. The next day, after all the inauguration parties are over, she calls a press conference to make an announcement: She is resigning as President! Bill, as the Vice President, immediately becomes President!

This is all perfectly legal under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, for it states that no person "may be elected as president more than twice".
Bill is not being elected for a third term but is merely serving out the remainder of Hillary's term--all 4 years of it.

5. But wait! There's more! The following day Bill calls a press conference to make an announcement. He has chosen someone to fill the now vacant Vice President position. Guess who he picks? Why, Hillary, of course!

Now it's your turn to stay awake while I get some sleep.

Whao dude, that'd be a tripp!

[Conservative Christian]

It wouldn't keep me awake if Hillary resigned and Bill took over. One is just as bad as the other, and I don't think either one of them is any worse than McCain.

However, I don't think the "powers behind the throne" and the democrat rank-and-file would be overly thrilled about something like that. If Hillary wins, I think they're going to be very elated about America having its first female president. I think they would be pretty upset if the Klinton's tried something like that.

I sincerely doubt that scenario will occur though, simply because Hillary's ego is way too big. She wants to be the "top dog", and will be enjoying the power rush far too much.

[Redcard]

Don't worry. It's not possible.

Read the 12th amendment.

no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States

(You know, for people who talk about the Constitution so much, you don't really read it :P)

[Conservative Christian]

Don't worry. It's not possible.

Read the 12th amendment.

no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States

(You know, for people who talk about the Constitution so much, you don't really read it :P)

At least we know the difference between a scientist and an economist! :D

And I was never worried about the scenario anyway, because even if were legal, it was highly improbable and unrealistic.