26 replies to this topic

[Stellar]

Although I'm not blind to the dangers of this if we are to assume a president can secretly rig an election, I do support it.

[Rafterman]

Eonwe, on 06 January 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

http://www.govtrack....lls/113/hjres15



Well, this certainly got real.

Let's also point out that Jose' has been putting forth this same bill for more than a decade now.

[HerNibs]

Rafterman, on 07 January 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

Let's also point out that Jose' has been putting forth this same bill for more than a decade now.

Yuppers.  No real news.  Fear mongering...again.

Guess it's been going on for the last twenty years.


Nibs

[Kafkaesque]

The problem with term limits is that in a way they are oppressive, don't you think?

If we were in a truly free society, we would have no term limits.

But you have to also imagine that if someone is able to be reelected and stay in office way past their time there's more potential to abuse.

[awest]

Only 1 president ever served more then two terms before the constitution was amended to add term limits, and well, it was an amendment. And amendment can't simply be legislated away. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the president to serve more then 2 terms and he actually died a few months into his 4th term.

[RavenHawk]

Eonwe, on 07 January 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

The problem with term limits is that in a way they are oppressive, don't you think?

If we were in a truly free society, we would have no term limits.

But you have to also imagine that if someone is able to be reelected and stay in office way past their time there's more potential to abuse.

In the case of government, they should be oppressive.  A truly free society would have proper limits on government.  I.e., the Bill of Rights.

[Kafkaesque]

RavenHawk, on 07 January 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

In the case of government, they should be oppressive.  A truly free society would have proper limits on government.  I.e., the Bill of Rights.

I agree.

Unfortunately our society seems to have a grand misconception about our rights.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Jinxdom, on 07 January 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

I'd put a nice stipulation that if you get kicked out by the people you also get tar and feathered. Might get politicians to actually you know work for the people instead of against.

Nah, hit them where it'll hurt "if you are removed from office for any other reason other then retirement or choosing to forgo a continuance of your term for medical reasons you will be bound by law to return all money paid to you as wages (other then the minimum you would have earnt in that time on a "living wage"). Failure to do so is a criminal act".

[RavenHawk]

Wearer of Hats, on 07 January 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

Nah, hit them where it'll hurt "if you are removed from office for any other reason other then retirement or choosing to forgo a continuance of your term for medical reasons you will be bound by law to return all money paid to you as wages (other then the minimum you would have earnt in that time on a "living wage"). Failure to do so is a criminal act".

We could do what has been purported that the Doges of Venice did (I have never really found confirmation of this but I like the idea).  The Doge was the leader of Venice.  They were elected from among the wealthy businessmen.  If there was any shortfall in city funds, the Doge was expected to make good on the difference out of their own pocket.  If they could not do so or make a deal, then their throat would be cut on the spot.

[DieChecker]

Personnally, I think that existing Term Limits should be reduced. If you're in DC too long, you get corrupted. We need new faces there constantly. And probably less of them need to be lawyers.

Isn't ending term limits one of the first thing that Hugo Chavez did? Isn't it one of the first things all pretender Presidents do to establish basically a dictatorship. Not that I'm accusing anyone of doing that here.... Clearly this guy is just pulling his same route for some reason.

[supervike]

Just playing devils advocate here, but why shouldn't the American voters be able vote for the same President for more than 2 terms?  He/she would still have to win.  I don't see why the limit should be in place at all.  We have the perfect chance to fire a politician every election day.

[DieChecker]

supervike, on 09 January 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

Just playing devils advocate here, but why shouldn't the American voters be able vote for the same President for more than 2 terms?  He/she would still have to win.  I don't see why the limit should be in place at all.  We have the perfect chance to fire a politician every election day.

My guess is that because the longer a President is in office, the more entrenched they become in all the areas of government, so that eventually the government is a complete reflection of that person, which is kind of like a form of tyranny. It promotes stagnation.