Should the constitutional limit preventing US Presidents from serving more than two terms be repealed?

  • Rose's Opinion

    Term limits for a president should be limited to two four year terms because without limits, our government will turn into a form of monarchy or dictatorship. This is a proven fact and should be brought into consideration for the sole reason that I said so. If I say it, then it is law.

  • Obama

    He is the best person to continue leading this country right now. The country can't handle a leadership change at this time. In addition, I think he will need a third term to get us fully back on track.

  • I do believe that a good President could be more effective if allowed to remain in office beyond two terms and, as a result, I support a repeal on the Constitutional limit.

    Eight years is actually a very short period of time, in relation to how long it takes to enact change within our government. For that reason, I do support a repeal on the Constitutional limit of two terms per President. The United Kingdom does not place a term limit on their Prime Ministers, and I feel that this allows the right official to remain in office, as long as they need to, to make a long-term, enduring change.

    Posted by: ToughEfrain26
  • I feel that the president should be able to serve more than two terms in office.

    I feel that if the president is doing a good job, there should be no limit to how many times he/she is elected. As long as the general public is voting a president into office, I see no reason their terms should be limited by the Constitution or any other institution.

    Posted by: TickoCa22
  • Yes, because a President should serve as many terms as the people think fit.

    The Constitution should be changed so that the 2-term limit for Presidents be eliminated. A person elected to President should be able to serve for as long as the public deems him/her the right person for the job. Reagan, for example, was an excellent President, and should have been able to serve a third term.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • The term limit imposed on the President serves the government's "checks and balances" function.

    The Twenty-second Amendment is an amendment that performs a "check and balance" on the executive branch of government. The amendment is one of many laws that prevents the President from becoming a ruler with unlimited powers. Someone once said, "A government that is big enough to give everyone everything they want is a government big enough to take every thing away". Amendments like the 22nd Amendment protect American citizens by ensuring that no one branch of government becomes too powerful.

  • NO!

    The Constitution is the foundation of our nation and the main reason our nation has remained as free as long at it has. Allowing a president to remain in power for more than the allowed amount inevitably ensures that he/she will acquire too much influence and power within the respective government. Such is never good for a nation, especially one whose values and rights are built upon freedoms! The American people should not allow such serious and potentially damaging changes to the U.S. Constitution. The people need to step up and defend their God given rights, and say "Enough is enough!". Corruption is already deep-seated in the government currently, without balance in power and will only get worse if left untreated. This is all an attempt for Obama to remain in power indefinitely. That is dictatorship, not democracy! The government has already threatened our national security by allowing a "Communist" country (china) to buy American soil in the middle of Idaho. Allowing them to build whatever they want (nuclear silos,etc) and not have to abide by any national or state laws. Americans fought communism for years and years and now we have let them do what they want(unrestricted) in the heart of our country. Do NOT allow any more power to change the lives of an entire nation (for better or worse) to any ONE individual. The founding fathers set limits and restrictions of power to keep this country free, don't make it all for nothing.

  • No, keep the limit!

    Most people hate change and would keep electing the current President whether it was good for the country or not. I believe giving any President too much time in office would allow him to become too powerful and have too long a time to implement an agenda that may not be good for the country.

  • No

    I believe that presidents should be restricted to two terms because it prevents the executive branch from assuming too much power. Politics needs constant injections of new blood to keep corruption from setting in too deeply and damaging the country. For instance, when FDR was president he tried to pack the court.

  • No way!

    The Presidency is a power position. It is a very hard truth that as soon as a man or woman gets a little unchecked power, they will begin to exercise unrighteousness dominion. If the President has unlimited or extended terms, their influence can be great or awful, dependent upon opinion. The system has in place a very specific and proper mandate, 2 terms and you are gone, this keeps our three branches working properly and not influenced by on individual for to long, such as a king, dictator or lifelong leader would have.

  • Logic says no

    Americans like stability over anything else. Rarely does a president not serve two terms and if allowed more than that. Bush was reelected after many mistakes and so was Obama. Americans like to keep people in because change is scary. It's a true fact of life that can't be ignored, the us would fail if we did that, and quickly,

  • No, never and certainly not now.

    I would say No even if my guy, GW Bush were in charge. The trend has been for all Presidents to fire their best shots in their 1st Term and the 2nd they try to refine, but the pattern of dealing with scandals, mishaps, poor performing underlings has afflicted every 2 term president.

    On top of that the chance for corruption and dictatorial styles exponentially would increase. When you listen to Obama's post-election talking points he already is succumbing to this by claiming the Majority of Americans...blah, blah, blah even on issues that the polls show he DOES NOT have the Majority in favor such as Obamacare.

  • No Way!

    Repeal of the term limit would enable a popular president to remain in office for up to 12 or 16 years during which time his/her party may gain strength in the House and Senate. It would be absurd to think that our country could operate fairly for all with a one party system.

  • No there is a good reason it was put into place in the first place.

    As you probably now, FDR was elected to 4 terms and died at the beginning of his 4th. The Constitution was Amended as a response because him serving that long had allowed him to become too powerful and up until that point it had been agreed upon unofficially that presidents would only serve as long as George Washington, who chose not to run for a third term. The two term limit works well because in the first term the president tries to impress the voters enough to earn a second term, in his after his second term he cannot be reelected and become a dictator.

  • Nah

    It would be great if only great presidents had an option of holding office more than two terms (Bring back Clinton!) But the limit allows fresh blood to run for president and allows for newer ideas and tactics to be admitted into the White House rather then cling to the same strategies and beliefs for longer than 8 years

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.