Presidential Term Limits

[sleuth]

My friends and I started to discuss this topic at lunch. We were pondering whether, with 200+ years of data, if there could be a strong case made for increasing the presidential term limit from 4 to 6 years, and perhaps even lowering the number of terms limit to 1.

Our reasoning was that 200 years ago, the president probably didn't have nearly as much to do as he does today. The world is a lot more complex than it was 200 years ago, and back then, 4 year election cycles probably didn't hamper the efficiency of a president's work so much.

Today, the president has a lot more to do, and having to win an election again just 3 years after he's elected really distracts him from the work he should be doing. Couple that with the efficiency loss that must occur during the "changeover" and it seems like it would be better if there were fewer election cycles.

What do you all think?

I think it sounds like a good idea. The only problem is getting it implemented. It would have to be initiated by Congress and it wouldn't be able to affect the current president. Reason being that if a Rep was in office, the Dems would object to extending his term because they don't want him in there, and vice versa. The only way I could see it passing is if it were scheduled for a distant time in the future, say... 2 or 3 elections from now.

[rraley]

I like the four-year term limit and the idea of personal succession. I think that being able to run for reelection keeps presidents beholden to the people and following through on campaign promises.

[Hessian]

Initially I was opposed but...reading your position, it makes sense. What about Supreme court judges? In 6 years at least three could drop off the bench, could be a serious shift with the new appointees.

[sleuth]

Originally posted by rraley
I like the four-year term limit and the idea of personal succession. I think that being able to run for reelection keeps presidents beholden to the people and following through on campaign promises.

What if instead of holding a reelection at the end of 4 years... how about an extension?

At the end of 3-4 years... you vote Yay or Nay on the president you have... and if there were a majority vote for the Nays... you hold another election and campaign just like the ones we have now.

It seems to me that there are too many other things a president should have to worry about besides a campaign.

[Tonio]

Originally posted by rraley
I like the four-year term limit and the idea of personal succession. I think that being able to run for reelection keeps presidents beholden to the people and following through on campaign promises.

I like the idea of one six-year term. But the real problem is that candidates seem to be beholden not to the people but to their financial supporters. How about a system of all public financing with no private money at all?

[rraley]

Originally posted by Tonio
How about a system of all public financing with no private money at all?

ABSOLUTELY!!! I think that that is the only form of campaign finance reform that will work. We all see how McCain-Feingold works (just as well as the old system).

[sleuth]

Originally posted by Hessian
Initially I was opposed but...reading your position, it makes sense. What about Supreme court judges? In 6 years at least three could drop off the bench, could be a serious shift with the new appointees.

The fact that Supreme Court Justices do not have term limits, I think, is to prevent a "revolt" over controversial decisions. If judges were given term limits, you'd have presidential candidates campaigning on who they're going to appoint to the Supreme Court.

A judge ought to be able to do his duty and interpret laws independently of what the public thinks. If the public wants to change the law, that's what the legislative branch is for.

[rraley]

Originally posted by sleuth
What if instead of holding a reelection at the end of 4 years... how about an extension?

At the end of 3-4 years... you vote Yay or Nay on the president you have... and if there were a majority vote for the Nays... you hold another election and campaign just like the ones we have now.

I'd rather have the 6 year term than the extension vote. A campaign for a proposition like that wouldn't be as directed and would favor the incumbent too much.

[rraley]

Originally posted by sleuth
The fact that Supreme Court Justices do not have term limits, I think, is to prevent a "revolt" over controversial decisions. If judges were given term limits, you'd have presidential candidates campaigning on who they're going to appoint to the Supreme Court.

A judge ought to be able to do his duty and interpret laws independently of what the public thinks. If the public wants to change the law, that's what the legislative branch is for.

I completely agree...The judiciary branch was designed to be the least democratic of all the branches and we should be thankful that it is. After all, a school desegregation law would have never been passed in the Congress in 1954, but the Supreme Court, which is not voted on by the public, correctly saw the injustice of separate but equal and struck it down as the legislature stagnated.

[sleuth]

Originally posted by rraley
I'd rather have the 6 year term than the extension vote. A campaign for a proposition like that wouldn't be as directed and would favor the incumbent too much.

It might favor the incumbent, but the purpose of the extension vote is not to determine who should replace the president, but whether the public believes the president might need replacing.

To me... if a president has an approval rating of 60-70% or more after 3 years... why go through all the money and waste of time of an election campaign?

An extension vote would still serve the purpose of holding a president accountable and not letting him go completely off the deep end.