"Put it to a vote"

[Pellaken]

this, a quote from crossfire. about the 22nd ammendment. which states, in short, that no president can serve more then 2 terms. the democratic member said "put it to a vote" the republican member said "its part of the constitution"
things in the constitution must be passed by 2/3rds of the senate, and 3/4ths of the states {as far as I know} but if a national referendum were held, which side would win?

personally, I belive that any president should be allowed to serve as many terms as they want. any limits on it, are limits on democracy. the USA, because of this law, is, IMHO, not a true democracy.

 

[Greadius]

FDR ruined a perfectly good tradition.

I think the problem is that the presidency is too powerful in political realms, and incumbancy too powerful in retention tactics.
Political freedoms are, of course, very important. But division of power and balance between the three branches of government is, in my opinion, equally as important. What FDR showed everyone (which is why the amendment passed shortly after his death with the support of his VP and successor) is that a long serving president can begin to dominate all three branches of government through judicial appointments (Judicial, duh), and access to public attention/veto power (Congress).

I, for one, think it is a good thing FDR died before the end of WW2, because he had far too much political power for peacetime, and in his 12 years as president had never once relinquished power.

 

[Pellaken]

Originally posted by Greadius
FDR ruined a perfectly good tradition.

I think the problem is that the presidency is too powerful in political realms, and incumbancy too powerful in retention tactics.
Political freedoms are, of course, very important. But division of power and balance between the three branches of government is, in my opinion, equally as important. What FDR showed everyone (which is why the amendment passed shortly after his death with the support of his VP and successor) is that a long serving president can begin to dominate all three branches of government through judicial appointments (Judicial, duh), and access to public attention/veto power (Congress).

I, for one, think it is a good thing FDR died before the end of WW2, because he had far too much political power for peacetime, and in his 12 years as president had never once relinquished power.

then make laws to restrict the power's of the president. if the people cant have thier own choice as president, then the system is useless! also, the people, when voting, MUST keep in mind ALL powers of the president.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Roosevelt was nearly a monarch, and would have been one if he had been able to get his Supreme Court plan (24 judges, conveniently appointed by him) through.

Term limits for Presidents are good.

Term limits for congressmen and Senators are bad.

The people who vote for geriatrics such as Thurmond and Helms will never realize it, but change will happen eventually, by the people who vote their minds, and not their pocketbooks.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Pellaken


then make laws to restrict the power's of the president. if the people cant have thier own choice as president, then the system is useless! also, the people, when voting, MUST keep in mind ALL powers of the president.

I am against term limits, with the only exception being for the President. The constitutionally mandated powers of the President are such that the longer he (or even she, someday) is in office, the more powerful he is. The power to appoint is a huge power, and if left in office long enough, the President would be surrounded by only like-minded people. That would be very unbalancing.

I hated having Presidential term limits when they forced Reagan out, but loved them when it came time for Clinton to go. You take the good with the bad.

I know you said that we could restrict the powers of the President, but that would take a constitutional amendment!

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Pellaken
the USA, because of this law, is, IMHO, not a true democracy.

I begin to wonder whether the Athenians could live up to some of your standards. A true democracy does not have representatives in the first place. I would defy you to show me a 'true' democracy any place on this planet.

What is undemocratic about the people enacting a law that requires much more than a simple majority to get passed? The people acted through their representatives to change their social contract in a small way. Were they to wish to, they could elect representatives to repeal this law and return to the old way of doing things.

Methinks you are overly worked up over a minor thing. However your crusade against 'untrue' democracy is entertaining, so by all means, continue.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by knowltok2
Methinks you are overly worked up over a minor thing. However your crusade against 'untrue' democracy is entertaining, so by all means, continue.

His persuits always border between entertaining and just plain disturbing

Pellaken,
I really wonder what your worldview will be like in a few years when your mental maturity catches up with your passion and interest.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Pellaken
this, a quote from crossfire. about the 22nd ammendment. which states, in short, that no president can serve more then 2 terms. the democratic member said "put it to a vote" the republican member said "its part of the constitution"
things in the constitution must be passed by 2/3rds of the senate, and 3/4ths of the states {as far as I know} but if a national referendum were held, which side would win?

personally, I belive that any president should be allowed to serve as many terms as they want. any limits on it, are limits on democracy. the USA, because of this law, is, IMHO, not a true democracy.

I saw that crossfire today as well - it was a very good one. I think the 22nd Amendment should be repealed. It was only put there in the first place by a right wing Congress to ensure there were no more FDR's. If there was no 22nd Amendment then Clinton would have easily trounced Bush in 2000.

BTW did you see the crossfire w/Nader and Buchanan? That was one of my favorites. I love how the crowd always cheers for Begala but rarely for that annoying Tucker guy who always interrupts Paul.

 

[duke o' york]

A President ought to be allowed to serve as many terms as he/she can manage to be voted in for, but no more than two consecutively. This might be self-evident to those of you who have already discussed it above, but it wasn't clear to me, a Brit, that this was what was implied by the finite term option.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Term limits for Presidents are good.

Term limits for congressmen and Senators are bad.

The people who vote for geriatrics such as Thurmond and Helms will never realize it, but change will happen eventually, by the people who vote their minds, and not their pocketbooks.

Hmm. I hold the opposite view. Senators and congressmen generally get less scrutiny on them than presidents/prime ministers, and are far more likely to mistake their electorate's interests with their own.

Take Canadian politics... Chretien sucks, but there was no other good alternative. Why should we be forced to elect a poorer leader by default?

 

[Pellaken]

Originally posted by Greadius
His persuits always border between entertaining and just plain disturbing

Pellaken,
I really wonder what your worldview will be like in a few years when your mental maturity catches up with your passion and interest.

I am mentally mature. that happened when I was 12... well, it started then anyways. at the tiem I thought I was right wing, so I guess I am indeed devloping

anyways, the US is not a democracy. NOT ONLY are you prohiited from voting for someone 3 tiems in a row, but you CANT EVEN RUN FOR PRESIDENT IF YOU WERENT BORN IN THE US!!! and NOT EVEN IF YOU ARE 18!!!
thats sick... just sick.

"What is undemocratic about the people enacting a law that requires much more than a simple majority to get passed? "
I agree the the people should, if in a majority vote, be able to do anything they want to... even vote in a 30 year old president, who was born in Belarus, for the 3rd time! (current laws make that illigal for 3 reasons)
this is not a minor thing. its MAJOR.

 

[NY Hoya]

the birth requirement is a good thing IMO. In fact, I would prefer to require that to be eligible, the candidate must have been born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens/ in the process of becoming citizens. It's also time to get rid of the law which states that as long as you're born on U.S. soil you can become a citizen

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Pellaken
anyways, the US is not a democracy. NOT ONLY are you prohiited from voting for someone 3 tiems in a row, but you CANT EVEN RUN FOR PRESIDENT IF YOU WERENT BORN IN THE US!!! and NOT EVEN IF YOU ARE 18!!!
thats sick... just sick.

I think you're going to have a tough time finding a democracy then... what nations allow foreignern 12 year olds to move in and become presidents for life?
This is one of those circumstances where your vitolic and blind hatred for the U.S. becomes annoying

Originally posted by Pellaken
I agree the the people should, if in a majority vote, be able to do anything they want to... even vote in a 30 year old president, who was born in Belarus, for the 3rd time! (current laws make that illigal for 3 reasons)
this is not a minor thing. its MAJOR.

Yes, majorly important thing. Perhaps if you understood the conditions under which those laws were inacted you'd have something more to argue on than your gut reaction for mob rule. There are a lot of equally important things that go into making a democracy, such as the respect of the rule of law, property rights, freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and association, criminal rights, transparent government, and many more. Democracy goes much deeper than 51% of the people think _____.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Greadius
There are a lot of equally important things that go into making a democracy, such as the respect of the rule of law, property rights, freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and association, criminal rights, transparent government, and many more. Democracy goes much deeper than 51% of the people think _____.

Right now there is a nail that is wondering why it got hit on the head.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Greadius
I think you're going to have a tough time finding a democracy then... what nations allow foreignern 12 year olds to move in and become presidents for life?
This is one of those circumstances where your vitolic and blind hatred for the U.S. becomes annoying

Yes, majorly important thing. Perhaps if you understood the conditions under which those laws were inacted you'd have something more to argue on than your gut reaction for mob rule. There are a lot of equally important things that go into making a democracy, such as the respect of the rule of law, property rights, freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and association, criminal rights, transparent government, and many more. Democracy goes much deeper than 51% of the people think _____.

Do you think that a 12 year old foreigner, even if allowed to run, would win ANY political office in America? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

What is the sense in not allowing a president to run for 3 terms? What is everyone scared of? That man may be the best for the job, and so he should be allowed to run again.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz

What is the sense in not allowing a president to run for 3 terms? What is everyone scared of? That man may be the best for the job, and so he should be allowed to run again.

Personally I am not scared of anything. A change was made to the covenant between the governed and the governing to forbid a third term. That covenant contains the methods for its own change. The document has worked well enough that I am prepared to accept it as the supreme law of the land. Changing the Constitution is a big deal and should not be entered into lightly. It is the guidelines within which we run the county. There is a very good reason a simple majority cannot change it.

I for one am not that committed one way or the other on term limits and woundn't get too worked up about a change, but that change has to work through the process that is in place to allow for it. My only concern is being labeled as undemocratic because we follow a written set of principles that cannot be changed on the whim of one more than 50%. It provides stability and certainty, and those lead to prosperity. I do not want to live in a society where I have to say, "Well, the X party just got elected, wonder if they will keep freedom of religion and freedom of the press? I wonder if there will be a supreme court this time?"

 

[Daaraa]

I voted no.
I agree that the powers are great in the presidential office, however, if you have a good leader, why turf him because he has been in for 8 years?
I think a compromise would be to have a 1 term break.
For example: We all know Bill Clinton loved being the president. However he could not run as his second term was up. With a one term break he could run in the next one against Bush.
The renentative powers of an incumbant are really great and that is why abolishing the 22nd amendment would be bad.

 

[Pellaken]

I still maintain, that ANYONE shoudl be able to run for aNY office they want to
if some 4 year old from zire wants to run for congressman from california, then why should we stop him? if he is the person the people want, to stop them from choosing so, is, frnakley, un-american

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Pellaken
I still maintain, that ANYONE shoudl be able to run for aNY office they want to
if some 4 year old from zire wants to run for congressman from california, then why should we stop him? if he is the person the people want, to stop them from choosing so, is, frnakley, un-american

Considering provisions restricting candidates from eligibality for office have been in the Constitution since there was such a thing as America (and in the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress), I'd say it is VERY American.

Why doesn't he just run for office in Zaire... they won't let him either? Because Zaire is not a democracy or has laws against it.

Could a four year old from Zaire hold an elective office in Canada?

 

[Pellaken]

Originally posted by Greadius
Considering provisions restricting candidates from eligibality for office have been in the Constitution since there was such a thing as America (and in the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress), I'd say it is VERY American.

Why doesn't he just run for office in Zaire... they won't let him either? Because Zaire is not a democracy or has laws against it.

Could a four year old from Zaire hold an elective office in Canada?

then its un-democratic. in canada this is not possible... but it should be.