H.J. Res 5 - Democratic Underground

Ex Lurker

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-19-09 02:58 PM
Original message

H.J. Res 5

Is the time now?

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SIMPLYB1980

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-19-09 03:12 PM
Response to Original message

1. No term limitations are a good thing.

I doubt many people would support it, and it basically stops this country from becoming a dictatorship. Much as I would like to keep Obama in the white house for longer than 8 years (at least right now), I just don't think it would be a good thing in the end.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ex Lurker

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-19-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. I'm just thinking about eight years from now

Biden would be too old to be a viable candidate and it would be another free for all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SIMPLYB1980

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-19-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. Free for all is better emo.

We have a lot of people who could run after that. If Obama does a good job we have plenty of Democrats who could lead. If he doesn't then we won't have much of a chance of wining. I believe what is more important to force the country to evolve. Let a leader stay in power for to long and it seams to me that only stagnation and regression can be the outcome. Look at what has happened under Shrub. He ruled as a dictator, but thanks to term limits the true extent that he could have acted dictatorial was severely muted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tekisui

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-19-09 03:15 PM
Response to Original message

3. No! If anything make it one six year term. The second term is always

a lame duck term.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SIMPLYB1980

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-19-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. That's not a bad idea at all,

and something that should be explored. Doubt it would go over well with either party though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

grantcart

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-19-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. well your arguing against your own idea.

Limiting a President to a single term would make him/her a single lame duck term.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tekisui

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-19-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. I don't think so, they would be concerned about being effective,

and keeping their party winning in the House and Senate. They would be president over 2 'mid-term' elections. They would have only the one chance to be a great President and get their goals accomplished. I think it would make for more ambitious leaders. And, we wouldn't be in the state of constant presidential campaigns.

At any rate, term limits produce lame ducks, but I would shudder to accept chimpy having the chance to stay in, or Raygun, or any other for more than 8 years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 07th 2024, 01:15 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.