During Obama's reign as president, it has widely been recognized over the world that he has done an excellent job. And who's to say the U.S gets someone who completely changes the government. Obama has been successful in taking part in the tracking down of the worlds most wanted criminal and has a keen analytical mind, grasping both the possibilities and the limits of activist government, and possessed of excellent communicative talents. I doubt they'll be someone as good as him to follow.
I would suggest a single term of 6 years for the President of the United States. My reasons are as follows:
1. Once elected, the President no longer has to worry about getting reelected as he does in his first term now. He can focus on his job of leading this nation.
2. It would remove the need to be along party lines and would allow the possibility of more moderate presidents in the future that have the ability to think outside of the political struggle- something we need in the white house.
For these reasons, among others that are more researched here (http://www.Chicagonow.Com/chicago-political-commentary/2012/01/term-limits-how-about-one-6-year-presidential-term/#.UoeNJuDnaM8)
I believe that the President should be limited to one term.
However, I believe we should do more than that- We should abolish the Electoral College and return the voting power to the people for this reason- THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TO VOTE AS DEMANDED. It is simply expected. Also, in cases like Florida and Ohio, I think that a direct popular vote would end the Problems there. Though in cases where the percentage is within 5% of each other, I would guess there would be recounts. However, this method is better now that we have modern voting equipment and if every state was required to move to the system and that was enforced, there would be less voting errors than traditional ballots.
How about a new president election every year? Eight years of one person is absurd! If that person is still doing well after one year than they would be re-elected, if not- next. There should never be a rule on how many "years" someone will stay in power- a year is enough.
If we don't want to have a president for another four years, then we won't elect them again. If they have done such a good job (like FDR) that we want more than just eight years, then they should have it if they so choose to run again. It might keep some of the would-be bad Presidents out of office.
The only reason this opinion has come up is simply because of the contradiction against President Obama. In my opinion President Obama is a wonderful President and we are not giving him as much credit as we should. We as Americans need to realize that it is not just the President that is in charge of America, it is much more complicated.
If someone remains president any longer than eight years, this is far too long and gives that person too much power. In contrast, if we shorten it then the presidency will not last long enough to institute working policies. Example is the ACA, having taken Obama's entire presidency to institute and get up/running.
We all learned as a child that we should take turns, and this applies to presidency rule as well. Too long would give someone too much power, and what if he's greatly disliked but he can't be impeached? I'm sure that would cause an uproar.
The eight years was a precedent set by the well known George Washington. I know that FDR didn't follow that precedent, but all the other presidents did.
America would begin to fell more like a theocracy if that happened, furthermore It would make the presidents feel to comfortable in office, just like a monarch... It would be like ancient Rome when the senate (in this case us) appointed a dictator. That even lead to a monarchy! We must not make our rulers seem like Julius Ceaser.
There's a reason why we fought England from 1776 to 1783. And even though by name they were supposedly a constitutional monarchy, they still retained things about an absolute monarch. The king still had power, and was king til he died. Heck Queen Victoria called herself the "empress of India." If England had truly been constitutional, Victoria would not have done that. No, term limits are good.
4 years is an appropriate amount of time for a president to make any changes they want to, and hopefully make the country a better place. Any less time and nothing would sufficiently get done, any more time and that would be much to long for any one person to lead a country
Currently, presidents are permitted to stay in office for up to 10 years (approximated). This serves up to two terms unless their is other circumstances such as a previous president's decease. If we allow for more terms, our 'president' will turn into a 'king'. No one person should be able to have supreme power, and allowing a prolonged presidency is allowing specifically that, hence why we have checks and balances. Two terms is plenty enough time for our president to get across his point in office. Following his presidency, if he'd like to continue working with the government, he can look for work elsewhere such as the Supreme Court, Judge, Law Enforcement, Etc.
Where are people's brains at? The most a president can do is two terms. After one term, they are up for re-election. If they win, good for them! If they lose, see ya around sometime. I don't see the problem the way the system already is as far as the term limits go. There is no need for more or less.
The area of government they should be debating term limits about is the senate. Some of these people in the senate have been in there for decades. Now to me. That isn't fair.