Topic: Length of the presidency Posted By: Thirteen Online Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:27 PM
In his appearance on THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, Jimmy Carter mentions his
belief, shared by several other former presidents, that the presidency
should be limited to a single, six-year term. Is this a good idea? What
are the likely benefits to having a president who has no thoughts
towards re-elction? What are the potential pitfalls to such a policy?
Is six years too long for an unsuccessful or unpopular president? Is it
too little time for an effective and popular president? Would such
changes, or any others, benefit the presidency and the U.S. political
system?
Responses:
Subject: Presidental office terms From: Fran Koenigsdorf Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:29 AM
Although a single six-year term for the office of the presidency is
interesting, I would prefer to keep the current four-year term, but
without the current limit of a president only serving two terms. In
this way, a popular and effective president could stay in office
without all the added expense and political wrangling for a new
candidate from his own party at the end of the president's two terms.
Subject: Terms should not matter From:Ryan White Date: 04 Apr 2000 5:35 PM
Presidential terms should not matter. Grover Cleveland lost the
election of 1888 to Ben Harrison and ran for the same office just four
years later. The Consitution says a president can be president for two
terms,a total of eight years. Bill Clinton could run for office again
in 2004.The consitution does not say anything about a former President
running for a another term, that was not part of his alltogether eight
years in the White House.
Subject: Presidential Term Limit From:Edward T Graney Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:35 PM
Frankly, with the interest in the political arena exerted by the voting
public at a wane, I don't really believe the length of term for a
president or anyother politician - and we must remember that a
president is nothing but a lying politician - is given a sane thought
by most of the electorate. Anyway, our presidents have become nothing
but 'mouth pieces' for the special interests, so what is the difference
how long they serve. That's the question. The answer is - There is no
difference.
Subject: correction From:kevin brooks Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:02 AM
No person May serve a total of [ 2] terms. It does not matter if they
leave office, they can not ever serve at another time if they have
served a total of two terms at ANY TIME. you need to fully read the
wording in the amend. to the Const. thanks
Subject: 2 terms is just right From: Seeker of Wisdom Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:40 PM
From the very beginning 2 terms has been about right. George
Washington knew it FDR did not know it. It should stay as it is. On a
side note, the congress should also be limited by term limits. I think
the 12 year limit that was brought up by the Republicans in the
"Contract WITH America" was about right. To bad the Demoncrats killed
it with a retroactive clause - it may have actually passed without it.
Subject: Length of Presidential Term From: Peter B. Thomas Date: 04 Apr 2000 5:49 PM
Jimmy Carter was one of our better presidents. He proffered
that we could trust him. But the Constitution was designed because men
could NOT be trusted.Presidents must prove that they are trustworthy by
their acts. We do not need a Mexican style presidency.Four years is
long enough to have to tolerate an evil man.Six would be too much!
Subject: Length of Presidential Term From: Ed Atkinson Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:08 AM
When I think about presidents in the line of Jefferson, Madison,
Truman, and Reagan; I lean towards the idea of "As long as the popular
vote elects them, let them serve."! However, when I think about the
ones like John Adams, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and the impeached Bill
Clinton; even four years is far too long a term!!
Subject: The Constitution did have a single six-year term limit From: Andy Smith Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:04 PM
The Confederate Constitution did limit the President to a single
six-year term. As it turned out, President Davis' term was prematurely
ended so we can only speculate as to the benefits of such a plan.
Subject: 6 year term From:Tracy Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:35 PM
One 6 year term would help stop abuses of power by sitting Presidents.
Such as President Nixon's Watergate mess and Clinton's unpresidented
use of his office to raise money and run for President. Your program
failed to mention in the Clinton Presidency how he virtually did
nothing but run for President in the 2 years prior to the 1996
election.
Subject: One 6 year term From:Boomer Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:31 PM
I think a president would get more done in 6 years,instead of
campaigning 2 years before his first termends.
Subject: Repeal the 22nd? From: David Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:38 AM
The Constitution should not be tampered with for light and transient
causes, but that is just what was done when the Republicans, fed up
after FDR was elected 4 times, determined that no one would ever be
president for life again. They reaped what they sowed, for only three
presidents have achieved the limit of two terms since the 22nd was
adopted: Eisenhower, Clinton, and the immensely popular Ronald Reagan,
who would likely have been elected to a third term in 1988. . . . It
was just a bad idea all around. Franklin Roosevelt's third term gave
the nation one of its greatest commanders-in-chief ever for WW II. A
case can be made that he was too sick to be elected a fourth time and
that Yalta was a disaster as a result, but who knows? In any case, the
certainty that a second term president is on the way out has damaged
even Reagan's second term. It creates a very long "lame duck" era. .
. . . Term limits are a bad idea. We need people in these complex
political jobs who know what they are doing. The only thing worse than
a "professional politician" in Congress, in particular, is a politician
who is preparing for his next job. The Roman Republic had term limits,
and it did not save them. An astute electorate is a much better
defense. Six-year terms, on the other hand, have little to commend
them. Like term limits, they limit only democracy. The fact that the
Confederacy had a six year term should tell us something. Russia is
considering ten!
It was a typical Republican move to pass the 22 to limit someome to a
total of two terms. Thank god they did in the case of Ronald Reagan
Subject: term limits From: geoff Date: 05 May 2000 11:25 AM
this article is absolutely correct! an electorate that is informed,
attentive, aware, and active is the best control on governmental power
and its abuse. term limits are a cop out and should all be repealed.
someone once said that, "the price of freedom is constant vigilance".
if we do not really pay attention, think, and then act responsibly then
we get what we deserve: bill clinton.
Subject: Presidential six year term From:P. Lehmann Date: 04 Apr 2000 3:40 PM
The main objection to having a president serve a second term seems to
be that fundraising and campigning for re-election takes too much time
away from the presidential duties. One answer is surely campaign
reform: limit the time allowed to campaign and the amount of money
spent. Of course, I have very little hope that this will come to pass,
since too many special interests are involved in the election process.
That being the case, I would favor a six-year term for the president.
Subject: Six years, too long From:Jessica Allen Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:21 PM
The Presidents rein over OUR country is best left at 4 years followed
by a re-election, if we so choose to re-elect the individual. If we
were to have any President in office for a 6 year period of time, I
believe that it would do more harm then good. If we elect an
individual that has done a great job, then we relect that individual.
If we elect an individual whom we would rather have by the wayside,
then the four and four provides us that option. A six year rein,
brings thoughts of terror to my mind.
We should take a hint from England where campaigns don't start till 2
months before the election.
Subject: Length of presidential term From: Ronald B. Flentgen Date: 04 Apr 2000 7:18 PM
I do feel that the presidential term should be changed to a 6 year,
non-succeeding term. This would enable the president to be more of a
statesman and less of a politician and lead the nation in the way that
is best for all concerned instead of in the direction of political
expediency. Admittedly we would run the risk of having an ineffective
president in for too long a period of time, but we have already had
ineffective presidents who have served two terms and the nation has
survived and even prospered. That risk seems to be outweighed by the
possible benefits. A sitting president should not have to waste so much
time and money running for a second term.
Subject: How would the past have been changed? From:Scott Berg Date: 07 Jul 2000 12:38 PM
Suppose a single 6 year term had been in effect this century. How
would the past have changed?FDR would have been gone before WWII
started.Kennedy would still have died early, leaving Johnson filling
out the term and getting re-elected, resulting in a very long term
indeed.Nixon would not have resigned. No re-election, no
Watergate.Carter would have floundered for another couple of years, and
the Iran hostage crisis would have continued for another 2 years.A
rather mixed bag. I think we did all right with the current system.
