AmericansL Should we Adopt a Monarchy?

[downtown]

The thread title is pretty misleading. Like many other posters have mentioned, a removal of presidential term limits means does not equal having a monarchy. (Also, the "Imperial Presidency" actually means something different)

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other actually. I think there are enough checks to prevent somebody from being president for 20, 30 years in a row, and I'd be *amazed* if somebody could remain popular for that long.

I'm inclined to be against term limits for govs and state senators though.

 

[Aramazd]

No, if anything I think that the President's term ought to be shorter not longer.

i would prefer an imperial govt, to a monarchy, like the romans, imperial govt. with the emperor and a senate, also conservative.
we could of had it if FDR didnt have polio.

Rome was essentially a monarchy. Succession passed from the emperor to his heir, unless there was a civil war. The Senate had little power and as time went on it had even less. Also, why does FDR having polio have anything to do with the US from becoming an empire under Roosevelt.

 

[thenooblet22]

I think this would be a step backwards in politics. Sure, we might have a possible good long-term leadership, but that could easily be followed by a failure. It feels like ages until Bush's term is over, can you imagine if that was extended by 10-20 more years? It's realize too much on chance.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I didn't say I was in favor of a lifelong term, only that we should be able to re-elect someone as often as we want, and not limited to two terms.

Isn't it just tradition to not seek a third term? FDR did it, or has it since been added to the constitution?

 

[Mercenary82]

The 22nd ammendment which was passed in 1947 states:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

 

[ArneHD]

Personally, I think all incompetent leaders should be shot. In this way, only the skilled and dedicated would even consider running for government.

Also, the incompetent half of the beurocracy should be forced to hand over several organs to various hospitals.

 

[azzaman333]

A term limit seems rather stupid to me. If someone is doing a great job of leading a country, why kick them out to introduce some halfwit to the office to screw the county?

 

[mdwh]

Presumably it's to make it harder for far worse things to happen, such as a dictator taking power. Plus, a change every so often is a good thing, even if someone is doing a "good job" - there are plenty of other people out there to take the place.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

We already have a monarchy. A new King is elected every four to eight years.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Isn't it just tradition to not seek a third term? FDR did it, or has it since been added to the constitution?

It was tradition for a long time because of George Washington's self-limitation at two terms. The reasoning I got for this was "Washington, our greatest president, only needed two terms, so if you seek more than two terms, you must think you're better than Washington." I never understood this; as I said earlier, if someone's doing a good job, we ought to be able to elect him again if he wants to run again, screw the two term limit, be it either by law or tradition.

 

[Leonel]

I'd want a monarchy in America. HOWEVER the King or Queen has to be attentive to the peoples concerns and be able to tell either liberals or conservatives that what they're complaining about or advocating is full of balognia. Obviously know when something is going to be absolutely necessary even if the people do not. Be extremely honest with the people but be able to keep some things secret if absolutely necessary.

 

[Guangxi]

Once they get inbred, you`ll get sick of them.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Once they get inbred, you`ll get sick of them.

Not if we breed them for amusing attributes, like big ears, big buck teeth, blank, flaccid, stupid faces, so they look like expensively attired donkeys...

...uh, on second thought...

edit: Not to put to fine a point on it, but consider Exhibit B

 

[SG-17]

Also, why does FDR having polio have anything to do with the US from becoming an empire under Roosevelt.

he was re-elected more than anyone else, had huge support from both parties, almost passed a bill that if a supreme court judge did not retire at age 70 he could appoint one until there were 15, giving him, control of the court, if he didnt have polio he would not have died when he did. he would have prob been re-elected again.

 

[Aramazd]

he was re-elected more than anyone else, had huge support from both parties, almost passed a bill that if a supreme court judge did not retire at age 70 he could appoint one until there were 15, giving him, control of the court, if he didnt have polio he would not have died when he did. he would have prob been re-elected again.

Congress refused to allow FDR to pack the Supreme Court, and I doubt Roosevelt could have been elected to a fifth term, with the war over and the economy better. IIRC, he died from a brain aneurysm, him having polio had nothing to do with his death.

 

[Atlas14]

My own version in this thread trend.

We came very close, you know, to being able to elect a President for life. What do you think, though: should we abolish the two-term limit, and be able to elect a President over and over again, if we so wish? Or, should we change it so that the President serves a lifelong term as POTUS? With all the normal rules applying, of course, he would just have a longer tenure in Washington.

Personally, I hate the two-term limit. If a man (or woman) is doing a good enough job leading our country as to be wanted for President again, who are we to stand in his way, and say "no it's somebody else's turn to try and screw it up?"

Of course if there are people who are all for an Imperial American system, by all means, let it out here!

Only if it is a Habsburg emperor as the head monarch!

Actually I really wouldn't mind having a monarch as long as our political system remains completely democratic.

 

[JohnRM]

Yeah, we actually have more than one King.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

What do you think, though: should we abolish the two-term limit, and be able to elect a President over and over again, if we so wish? Or, should we change it so that the President serves a lifelong term as POTUS? With all the normal rules applying, of course, he would just have a longer tenure in Washington.

Personally, I hate the two-term limit. If a man (or woman) is doing a good enough job leading our country as to be wanted for President again, who are we to stand in his way, and say "no it's somebody else's turn to try and screw it up?"

We don't have enough decent politicians in the UK to restrict them only to two-terms each. It's a shocking State of Affairs when you look who has run this country for vast periods of time, but the alternatives I believe are worse.

Obviously you Americans can do as you see fit, but I prefer having the option to keep someone if they are doing a good job.

Not if we breed them for amusing attributes, like big ears, big buck teeth, blank, flaccid, stupid faces, so they look like expensively attired donkeys...

The cup he is holding however demonstrates he has immaculate class and taste.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

QFT

I would never adopt her, because then it would almost be incest.

 

[Agarwaen]

How about an Emperor elected, like in the Holy Roman Empire, but in a more democratic way?