Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

http://news.yahoo.com/presidential-term-limits--necessary-and-right--or-bad-for-democracy-192726518.html

I oppose term limits of any kind. We have elections to "limit terms" I also do not like "recall elections" Voters should be more careful not to elect dumb@sses in the first place, but if they do, there is always the next election. Though I aided the NRA in it's successful efforts to un-seat a couple fascists in Colorado and another just resigned...I really would prefer they had just been voted out and the law repealed. Getting rid of them will probably help get the law repealed sooner than the NRA's lawsuit will get it overturned. It IS the law so I went along with it. Besides, I am biased and it was in my favor this time.

All that said, I would have no problem going back to what we had originally. NO term limits, NO elections for Senators and NO primary elections. I think also that any amendment changing the election process should include the elimination of the electoral college and a requirement that the congress produce a budget within 100 days or be UN-elected en mass and new elections held with all ousted incumbents ineligible.

• The electoral college is obsolete and was probably nothing more than a solution to a problem that never existed.
• The constituion requires the congress to create a budget but gives no deadline and no penalty if they don't. An oversight that should be corrected
• An appointed Senate would eliminate the influence of campaign contributions to anyone. There endeth THAT debate.
• Primary elections are nothing but a cause for more contibution corruption. If the parties are unable to decide who to run, then they can have online "votes" to serve as guides in their choice. YES, they could be corrupted. So what? They are just a guide anyway, no one would have to comply with the results...or even have them at all.
• Limit campaigning to 30 days before an election.

With those protections in place, there was nothing wrong with the original method of elections/appointments.

As for the filibuster BS, it was never the intent of anyone for the Senate to "block" candidates on a political basis. One of the results of a Presidential election (one of the biggest results) is that the President gets to appoint judges. People need to pay attention to that. An idiot like Obama can affect opur lives for decades after he is gone. Especially when he is in office for 8 years. Voters give lots of attention to things the President has little control of (the economy) and no attention to the things has has absolute control of (court appointments) Bizarre.

In any case the Senate is to approve these appointments unless there is some disqualifying factor. Political beliefs don't count...for ANY party.

We should return to the way the Senate filibuster WAS, you stand up on your hind legs like a man and keep talking until the other side gives up. Or you lose. This gives a DEDICATED minority, or even ONE Senator, a chance. Otherwise "majority rules" On any issue, not just judges.

So I say..."go ahead put it back" But put it ALL back

What say you?

[jyaku 138]

What you'd like is a lot easier to say than actually having people agree on it. The founding fathers saw this problem and that's why changes to the constitution are not easy. They require..

2/3rd the votes of both houses of congress and the presidential signature and on top of that.. it has to be ratified and agreed on by 75% (or thirty eight states).

And given that most people would not watch/ read the news, and just watch American Idol or their favorite cable channel, the country is ripe for politicians and companies who pay them to manipulate the constitution as they see fit.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What you'd like is a lot easier to say than actually having people agree on it. The founding fathers saw this problem and that's why changes to the constitution are not easy. They require..

2/3rd the votes of both houses of congress and the presidential signature and on top of that.. it has to be ratified and agreed on by 75% (or thirty eight states).

And given that most people would not watch/ read the news, and just watch American Idol or their favorite cable channel, the country is ripe for politicians and companies who pay them to manipulate the constitution as they see fit.

Good comment based on reality.

Though we DID implement amendments to create term limits for the President and elections for Senators. Seems like it would be possible to create a couple more to repeal those. Problem is that we would be expecting the people (congress) who do not benefit from them to implement them.

Of course amendments can come from states also. If 75% of state legislatures voted for it, it becomes an amendment. Congress doesn't have to like it.

I don't think any of this is likely but it was an interesting news artical and I wondered what others thought about it.

Thanks.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Is it cheaper to buy a 1 politician for say 16 years or 3 over the same time?

[Pooky 3,559]

Term limits for Presidents, Senators, Congresspeople, Supreme Court and Appellate Court Justices.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Obama is not going to stay President. You sheep do understand this right?

[Karee 4,190]

http://news.yahoo.com/presidential-term-limits--necessary-and-right--or-bad-for-democracy-192726518.html

I oppose term limits of any kind. We have elections to "limit terms" I also do not like "recall elections" Voters should be more careful not to elect dumb@sses in the first place, but if they do, there is always the next election. Though I aided the NRA in it's successful efforts to un-seat a couple fascists in Colorado and another just resigned...I really would prefer they had just been voted out and the law repealed. Getting rid of them will probably help get the law repealed sooner than the NRA's lawsuit will get it overturned. It IS the law so I went along with it. Besides, I am biased and it was in my favor this time.

All that said, I would have no problem going back to what we had originally. NO term limits, NO elections for Senators and NO primary elections. I think also that any amendment changing the election process should include the elimination of the electoral college and a requirement that the congress produce a budget within 100 days or be UN-elected en mass and new elections held with all ousted incumbents ineligible.

• The electoral college is obsolete and was probably nothing more than a solution to a problem that never existed.
• The constituion requires the congress to create a budget but gives no deadline and no penalty if they don't. An oversight that should be corrected
• An appointed Senate would eliminate the influence of campaign contributions to anyone. There endeth THAT debate.
• Primary elections are nothing but a cause for more contibution corruption. If the parties are unable to decide who to run, then they can have online "votes" to serve as guides in their choice. YES, they could be corrupted. So what? They are just a guide anyway, no one would have to comply with the results...or even have them at all.
• Limit campaigning to 30 days before an election.

With those protections in place, there was nothing wrong with the original method of elections/appointments.

As for the filibuster BS, it was never the intent of anyone for the Senate to "block" candidates on a political basis. One of the results of a Presidential election (one of the biggest results) is that the President gets to appoint judges. People need to pay attention to that. An idiot like Obama can affect opur lives for decades after he is gone. Especially when he is in office for 8 years. Voters give lots of attention to things the President has little control of (the economy) and no attention to the things has has absolute control of (court appointments) Bizarre.

In any case the Senate is to approve these appointments unless there is some disqualifying factor. Political beliefs don't count...for ANY party.

We should return to the way the Senate filibuster WAS, you stand up on your hind legs like a man and keep talking until the other side gives up. Or you lose. This gives a DEDICATED minority, or even ONE Senator, a chance. Otherwise "majority rules" On any issue, not just judges.

So I say..."go ahead put it back" But put it ALL back

What say you?

All 5 of those bullet points should be the law. Unfortunately, it'll probably never happen.

[Peikko 1,575]

There are a lot of appointments in the US that are political that shouldn't even be. Why are judges appointed by politicians? Why are judges viewed as political animals? Their place is to assist the court in the interpretation of legal precedent and procedure. The law should be interpreted for the benefit of court and not biased toward a politically ideological position. I expect most judges are politically neutral in the court so they should be seen to be so by the public. Get rid of this ludicrous system.

[Pooky 3,559]

Appellate and Supreme Court appointments have been based as much on political persuasion as they have on legal skill in the USA for as long as I can remember. It is a major reason for the relative lack of confidence in these courts' determinations.

[Peikko 1,575]

Appellate and Supreme Court appointments have been based as much on political persuasion as they have on legal skill in the USA for as long as I can remember. It is a major reason for the relative lack of confidence in these courts' determinations.

Yep, not good for justice and not good for politics. Abandon this system, it's not working.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Replace it with what?

Yep, not good for justice and not good for politics. Abandon this system, it's not working.

[Peikko 1,575]

Look outside of the US to see how other countries set about it - cherry pick the best systems, just as you should have done with health care.

I know about the UK system and I know that judges are not viewed as political puppets, the judicial system is seen to be mostly apolitical and the sentencing is largely not viewed as partisan. Of course like all systems their are negatives but at least there is no money changing hands for political favour and that's a good thing. It's one system that works, there are many others.