Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:02 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Should we repeal the 22nd Amendment? |
|
Which limits an infividual of either party to two full terms as President?
Hey....Limpballs brought it up. And Obama will only be 55 in 2016.
|
RDANGELO
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:04 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Yes , and also the cloture(60 votes) rule in the senate. |
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. That serves a legitimate purpose to insulate the senate from bandwagen jumping |
|
or getting swept up in popular tides.
That's what the House is for.
|
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
12. Someone's been reading the Federalist Papers. |
|
When the Founding Fathers opted for Bicameralism, It was not simply a comproimise for big and small states. It was about harnessing the passions that could be in play in the People's House. It was effectively a hedge against the passions of a largely illiterate electorate. There is still that need today.
The problem is with court appointees in that a handful of Senators who represent far less than 40% of the population can stymie a clear mahority of the electorate,, The rule should be different for lifetime appointees. Aand there should be no cluture on Executive Branch nominees. But on legislation, cloutrue is ultimatly a good thing.
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
30. The Senate makes its own rules. |
slackmaster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
33. That is strictly a matter of US Senate rules |
|
Law doesn't have anything to do with it.
|
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
38. That can easily be dumped by Democrats anytime by using the "nuclear option" |
InvisibleTouch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
If someone's doing a great job, why should they get kicked out?
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:06 PM
Response to Original message |
3. REPEAL. I've never supported it. We NEVER would have had GWB if no 22nd amendment. nt |
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
19. Maybe Reagan would still be president, and there would of been no Clinton... |
|
With his body hooked up to a breathing machine.
|
FSogol
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:06 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Yes, but just to freak out the freepers, birthers, bigots, and rapturists that make up today's GOP. |
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
8. You'd have to set a future date for it to take effect. nt |
FSogol
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. Ok, it can go into affect after 2012. |
|
Should be good for a lot of laughs.
|
Birthmark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:07 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It'll give the Rushpublicans something to blubber (no pun intended) about for the next eight years.
|
and-justice-for-all
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:08 PM
Response to Original message |
7. The Hutt is a fearmongering idiot..nt |
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:09 PM
Response to Original message |
9. ABSOLUTELY NOT! Many people, at one time or another, really |
|
liked one or another President, but we all have to think of unintended consequences in the future. ie" What if Reagan had been able to serve another term? I bet he would have been elected! Altzheimers and all! Clinton most likely would have gotten a 3rd term, and although I really liked him for many reasons, I don't think expanding many of his policies would have been good for the Country. Although he woulkd have been much better than Shrub!!!!!
Instead of overturning the 22nd Ann. I think we should push for a NEW ONE. One that limits the terms anyone can serve in the House & Senate.
|
Bill McBlueState
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
46. If this country is actually run on democratic principles, |
|
then people should be able to keep voting for a particular individual to be President if they want.
|
tom_paine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:14 PM
Response to Original message |
10. HELL NO! First off, Washington himself set the standard, and while I now understand FDR's reasons |
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtmlI am still glad it's now enshrined as an amendment. And fuck Limpballs, he's a corrupt totalitarian monster. Who cares what he says?
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:35 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Yes. We ought to have the option of voting the same people in |
|
if we want to. The amendment simply removes that option.
|
rvablue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:56 PM
Response to Original message |
14. No, based on "be careful what you wish for." |
|
If you say "yes" simply based on a 3rd term for "an Obama" just think what three terms of "a Shrub" would do to this country....we barely survived 2.
|
RoadRage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message |
15. NO! What goes around, comes around... |
|
I'm sure there are several here that would like to see Obama be president until he's 90... but think about this:
1. Good Presidents are sometimes good presidents because they push things through quickly.. always thinking they only have less then 4 years left.
2. Imagine if Reagan had done this... he had a lot of people who loved him too - and think what would have happend if he were allowed (or someone like him) to be president for longer then 8 years.. he did enough damage in that amount of time.
This rule is here for a reason. I love Obama, and I hope he paves the way for another brilliant democratic president in 2016. We can only hope!
|
Bill McBlueState
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
48. "The rule is here for a reason" |
|
What if the reason is simply that 1950's Republicans didn't like FDR's legacy?
|
bigwillq
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I am all for term limits. Think there should be limits in the House and Senate.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message |
17. I'm with President Bartlet on this one |
|
Edited on Tue Jun-30-09 02:04 PM by Hippo_Tron
No term limits but reform campaign finance laws so that incumbency doesn't produce such a quantitative advantage via money. Make it so that challengers stand a serious chance against incumbents. "When the field is level we have term limits, they're called elections."
Being in office for too long doesn't inherently make an elected official less responsive to their constituents. Its just that our system makes it so that people who are in office for a long time are allowed to be less responsive to their constituents.
|
davidpdx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
|
Geez I have to drag out my DVD collection and start watching those this summer. They are like old friends.
|
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
29. I have all seven seasons and probably watch4 or five episodes a week |
|
The show was incomprably written, and the cast was great.
|
davidpdx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
question everything
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 02:08 PM
Response to Original message |
18. No. Roosevelt should have never been elected in 1944 |
|
He was too sick and could not stand up to Stalin during the Yalta conference. And, of course, died a few months after he was sworn in.
And... this was the excuse that they used in 2004: that one does not "replace" the Commander in Chief during a war.
On the other hand, it has been suggested a one six-year term. This way, decisions are not influenced by the upcoming elections.
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
36. He could stand up to Stalin at Yalta, but he looked at the map, saw the location |
|
of the Red Army and realized no one in the US would want to send their kids to defend Estonia, etc.
But, no, he should not have run in '44.
|
TheKentuckian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 02:51 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Sure, I don't believe in term limits. |
|
I understand the arguments in favor of them but none of them trump the will of the people for me. Let's keep in real, we still got Reagan's 3rd term and all the suckitude that came with it. In fact we ideologically got five of them broken by a couple of terms of mellowed classic Republican (no snub to Bubba, that was pretty damn good for the time).
I think people overstress too. In about 150 years or so when it was possible, only one guy got more than two terms and probably only one more in Washington that could have, granted for a slew of reasons. Evidence says the people will only go around with you more than twice if they really, really, really want to, and probably rightfully so. Raygun wasn't that damn popular when he was leaving office. I don't know if Duke would have taken him but he wouldn't have gotten Mondaled. More or less, I think events would have played out roughly the same except we probably avoid the shrub altogether by getting a third Clinton term and at least marginally the country would be less totally jacked up.
|
Bill McBlueState
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
|
It's important to remember that we have 160 years of American history to demonstrate that, no, nothing horrible happened when Presidents were able to keep running for re-election.
The ability to vote for the candidate of your choice is one of the most important principles in our system.
|
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 03:51 PM
Response to Original message |
21. You left off the "Fuck no!" option |
|
I still would have voted a simple "no" myself, because I refuse to indulge in crudities like typing "fuck" in a family friendly forum.
Here too, by the way.
|
Canuckistanian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
34. This is a "family friendly forum"? |
|
Fuck, I didn't know that. I would have curtailed my blowjob jokes.
Sorry.
|
Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 03:54 PM
Response to Original message |
|
If it's done, it should be for the next president. It probably shouldn't be done.
|
last_texas_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
|
Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with repealing the 22nd, but, if done, such a repeal should not apply to the sitting president.
|
rasputin1952
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 05:00 PM
Response to Original message |
23. The R's fought hard for the 22nd Amendment... |
|
just to ensure they would never have to deal w/an FDR scenario again. What did Limbaugh want, another bush administration?
The 22nd is a double edged sword, but I favor limiting a president to 2 terms. The problem is, immediately following a second win, a president becomes a lame duck...except in an e,ergency, everything is based on shoring up a "legacy". bush's legacy is abject failure. Obama's legacy most likely will be one of repairing the damage, and moving forward on various societal changes...:)
|
Donald Ian Rankin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 05:17 PM
Response to Original message |
24. Only if the repeal doesn't apply to the incumbent, and probably not even then. |
|
Extending term limits to allow the guy in power to stay longer is a symptom of a democracy in decline.
You can have a perfectly good democracy without term limits, but if you've got them, getting rid of them is a danger sign.
|
geek_sabre
(619 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 05:34 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I also support term limits for the house and the senate.
|
namecallerholic
(39 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message |
26. Why? So you can further increase the power of corporate lobbyists over the government? |
baldguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 08:58 PM
Response to Original message |
31. President-For-Life George W Bush |
Bill McBlueState
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #31 |
50. how do you think 2008 would have turned out |
|
if it had been Bush vs Obama?
|
slackmaster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 09:06 PM
Response to Original message |
32. Sad to see almost 1/3 of us are damned fools who fail to learn from history |
NYC Liberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 09:09 PM
Response to Original message |
35. I say the 22nd is still too loose. Make it one term of 5 years. |
|
Some people complain that it would tie the president's hands as he'd have "lame duck" status earlier and Congress would have much more power.
I say GOOD! We need a little less executive power, IMHO.
|
Colobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 09:17 PM
Response to Original message |
37. I'd say yes, but imagine how much fraud would we see from presidents |
|
not wanting to get out of office...
|
Bill McBlueState
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #37 |
51. was this a big problem |
Clio the Leo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 09:19 PM
Response to Original message |
39. I like the Obamas too much... |
|
.... to make them endure more than 8 years.
|
Sebastian Doyle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-30-09 10:53 PM
Response to Original message |
41. Until we get rid of each and every electronic election stealing machine, and get a REAL media again |
|
we should do NOTHING that could be used against us so blatantly. Believe me, if there were no 22nd Amendment, Chimpy would have stolen the last election just like he did the two previous ones.
|
TheKentuckian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #41 |
42. I think he was out of cheat range. |
|
I think they have to get at least 43-44% of the actual vote to fudge it without really stirring the pot. shrub was down to the base, McPhalin picked up some off of novelty, bigotry, and McCain's phantom air of moderation. I think they cynically damn near scraped up ever vote they could by selecting McCain and probably then Palin who may well have got as many to show up as she scared away plus providing the spotlight in a time they should have lost it. They pulled out every stunt and still couldn't get into range to cheat it without consequences. Bush would have be clocked and if he stole it, there probably would be massive civil unrest at the least.
Also, if there was no 22nd Amendment then there would be and likely never would be any Dimson. We'd probably be lamenting the choice of Jeb right about now but at least we wouldn't have had a double dose of the pure shit.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 03:32 AM
Response to Original message |
43. And we should get ALL Democratic state legislatures in "Red" states |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-01-09 03:33 AM by Ken Burch
to make the Electoral College results proportional(any state can do that).
It's time that voters in Atlanta, for example, mattered as much in presidential elections as voters in Macon County. Same for Voters in Austin compared to voters in Waco and voters in New Orleans as compared to the Klan and Incest region of Northern Louisiana.
If we can't get rid of the EC yet, we can at least make it slightly less unfair.
And we need to get rid of the size limit on the U.S. House and elect it by PR in each state, with IRV for Senate races.
|
Midwestern Democrat
(238 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 06:32 AM
Response to Original message |
44. Yes - I don't believe in term limits. NT |
jefferson_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 06:36 AM
Response to Original message |
45. No. By then it will be time for Barack to step aside... |
SemiCharmedQuark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-01-09 08:15 AM
Response to Original message |
47. Hell no! Reagan would still be president Weekend at Bernie's style. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 01:25 AM
Response to Original message |