Amazon.com Widgets

Two-term limits on US presidents: Is the two-term limit on US presidents justified?

  • 2 term limits are justified

    We could get stuck with a bad president. This is because by raising the amount of years the president has in office, you are increasing the amount of time a bad president could make bad decisions. Also, we cannot just impeach a president for being bad, he has to commit a crime. In the constitution, article 2, section 4, it says: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This means impeachment happens only in the case of, I quote, "high crimes and misdemeanors". So if we have a bad president, and we have terms of 6 years, that president would pass a bunch of bad laws for 6 years, we would have very bad emergency action, which is something the president controls. This means that by having a term of 6 years, we are putting our safety at risk, because if we get attacked, we would be slow to react. Also, this bad president could create laws that would make us have to waste money and time to get rid of, and this bad president could knock down laws that took lots of time and money to create.

    Now to my second point: Having to go through 2 elections keeps presidents accountable. For instance, Obama said he was going to send more people to Afghanistan, but when he ran for re-election he said he withdraw the troops from Afghanistan, because he wouldn't have been voted for otherwise. Without this accountability check, presidents could pass a bunch of bad laws, and not care about what they did, because they know that they can't be taken out of office.

    Now to my final point: having an election every 6 years restricts freedom. Our country is a democracy, meaning the people make decisions. Having elections every 4 years allow people to choose more. That is what our country is founded on, having this choice. However, having an election not only restricts the freedom of the people, it restricts the freedom of the president. The president may WANT to only be in office for 4 years. If we force the president to either resign, which would be broadcast to the entire world and be very embarrassing, or have to be in office for 6 years against their will. Because of this, less people may run for president, meaning we will have worse presidents, and as I said before, if we have bad presidents for 6 years, they can cause lots of problems. Also, if the president wants to be in office for 8 years, they won't be able to, because they must go for 6 years.

  • No consecutive terms should ever be allowed.

    The president should serve one SIX-YEAR, NON-CONSECUTIVE TERM (SYNT)—NOT one four-year term or two consecutive four-year terms. The president should serve for six years and then categorically NOT be eligible to run for a consecutive term. However, after having been out of office for six or more years, he would indeed be entitled to run again.

    BAD PRESIDENT SCENARIO
    The standing president might prove to be a truly bad president, but he will be a bad president for ONLY one term. That is, he might be a bad president for most of his six-year term, but six years of a truly bad president is surely better than eight.

    Complainers and haters won't be able to incessantly complain about the standing president because they will know for certain that he can serve only six years and then he will be out--for at least six years, at least.

    CAMPAIGNING FOR RE-ELECTION
    The standing president will not piss away two full years of his four-year term campaigning for re-election. He will be able to spend his time doing the work he was elected to do.

    Huge amounts of taxpayer money would be saved by having fewer presidential elections over a given period of time. A great amount of inconvenience would be avoided for communities, as they are ordinarily greatly put out because of presidential campaigns (security, logistics, etc.).

    GOOD PRESIDENT SCENARIO
    With our present system, if we get a good president, he could be ousted after only four years—for whatever highly illogical reason. And we would have no guarantee that his successor will be a good president. In other words, with our present system, were he indeed a good president, we would have the privilege of his leadership for only four years, not six, as proposed in the SYNT system.

    Four years is ordinarily not enough time to initiate and fully implement most truly meaningful and beneficial changes, policies, and programs. Under the present four-year system, when one president signs something into law or promotes something good, the new laws/processes oftentimes don't begin until the next president is in office. A six-year term would be more suited to giving the good president enough time to be comprehensive and thorough.

    If he truly had been a good president, his record will speak for itself. If the good president's successor proves to be incompetent, then by contrast, the people will know that the good president was indeed a good one—or at least a better president than the successor. The contrast between the good president’s performance and that of the ineffective, worthless successor could very well be sharp. As such, the populace will want the good president back—and in a hurry! The good president would be entitled to run again, after having been away from the presidency for six years. The good (i.E., former) president won't have to rely on promises, bull-crap, and guesswork to get back into office; he will already have a proven track record. People would know what they are getting—right up front.

  • No consecutive terms should ever be allowed!

    The president should serve one SIX-YEAR, NON-CONSECUTIVE TERM (SYNT)—NOT one four-year term or two consecutive four-year terms. The president should serve for six years and then categorically NOT be eligible to run for a consecutive term. However, after having been out of office for six or more years, he would indeed be entitled to run again.

    BAD PRESIDENT SCENARIO
    The standing president might prove to be a truly bad president, but he will be a bad president for ONLY one term. That is, he might be a bad president for most of his six-year term, but six years of a truly bad president is surely better than eight.

    Complainers and haters won't be able to incessantly complain about the standing president because they will know for certain that he can serve only six years and then he will be out--for at least six years, at least.

    CAMPAIGNING FOR RE-ELECTION
    The standing president will not piss away two full years of his four-year term campaigning for re-election. He will be able to spend his time doing the work he was elected to do.

    Huge amounts of taxpayer money would be saved by having fewer presidential elections over a given period of time. A great amount of inconvenience would be avoided for communities, as they are ordinarily greatly put out because of presidential campaigns (security, logistics, etc.).

    GOOD PRESIDENT SCENARIO
    With our present system, if we get a good president, he could be ousted after only four years—for whatever highly illogical reason. And we would have no guarantee that his successor will be a good president. In other words, with our present system, were he indeed a good president, we would have the privilege of his leadership for only four years, not six, as proposed in the SYNT system.

    Four years is ordinarily not enough time to initiate and fully implement most truly meaningful and beneficial changes, policies, and programs. Under the present four-year system, when one president signs something into law or promotes something good, the new laws/processes oftentimes don't begin until the next president is in office. A six-year term would be more suited to giving the good president enough time to be comprehensive and thorough.

    If he truly had been a good president, his record will speak for itself. If the good president's successor proves to be incompetent, then by contrast, the people will know that the good president was indeed a good one—or at least a better president than the successor. The contrast between the good president’s performance and that of the ineffective, worthless successor could very well be sharp. As such, the populace will want the good president back—and in a hurry! The good president would be entitled to run again, after having been away from the presidency for six years. The good (i.E., former) president won't have to rely on promises, bull-crap, and guesswork to get back into office; he will already have a proven track record. People would know what they are getting—right up front.

  • No consecutive terms should ever be allowed!

    The president should serve one SIX-YEAR, NON-CONSECUTIVE TERM (SYNT)—NOT one four-year term or two consecutive four-year terms. The president should serve for six years and then categorically NOT be eligible to run for a consecutive term. However, after having been out of office for six or more years, he would indeed be entitled to run again.

    BAD PRESIDENT SCENARIO
    The standing president might prove to be a truly bad president, but he will be a bad president for ONLY one term. That is, he might be a bad president for most of his six-year term, but six years of a truly bad president is surely better than eight.

    Complainers and haters won't be able to incessantly complain about the standing president because they will know for certain that he can serve only six years and then he will be out--for at least six years, at least.

    CAMPAIGNING FOR RE-ELECTION
    The standing president will not piss away two full years of his four-year term campaigning for re-election. He will be able to spend his time doing the work he was elected to do.

    Huge amounts of taxpayer money would be saved by having fewer presidential elections over a given period of time. A great amount of inconvenience would be avoided for communities, as they are ordinarily greatly put out because of presidential campaigns (security, logistics, etc.).

    GOOD PRESIDENT SCENARIO
    With our present system, if we get a good president, he could be ousted after only four years—for whatever highly illogical reason. And we would have no guarantee that his successor will be a good president. In other words, with our present system, were he indeed a good president, we would have the privilege of his leadership for only four years, not six, as proposed in the SYNT system.

    Four years is ordinarily not enough time to initiate and fully implement most truly meaningful and beneficial changes, policies, and programs. Under the present four-year system, when one president signs something into law or promotes something good, the new laws/processes oftentimes don't begin until the next president is in office. A six-year term would be more suited to giving the good president enough time to be comprehensive and thorough.

    If he truly had been a good president, his record will speak for itself. If the good president's successor proves to be incompetent, then by contrast, the people will know that the good president was indeed a good one—or at least a better president than the successor. The contrast between the good president’s performance and that of the ineffective, worthless successor could very well be sharp. As such, the populace will want the good president back—and in a hurry! The good president would be entitled to run again, after having been away from the presidency for six years. The good (i.E., former) president won't have to rely on promises, bull-crap, and guesswork to get back into office; he will already have a proven track record. People would know what they are getting—right up front.

  • Two-term Limit On Presidents Justified

    Yes, the two term limit on United States Presidents is justified because it helps to ensure that no one president can grow too big over a power base. The two term limit is a check against presidential power. Increasing the term limit to three terms would only grant sitting presidents more time to amass power.

  • Two-term limits work fine.

    Two-term limits work great for the United States of America. If Presidents had unlimited terms they would either be a king or some other type of dictator. One of the wonderful things about this country is that the people believe they still have a say. If a dictator were in charge, that would no longer be the case. With two-term limits, Presidents of the United States are limited to the amount of damage they can do. Even during bad times, there is hope that with the next President, things may get better. If we do away with term limits, we lose that hope.

  • 2 term limits are justified

    We could get stuck with a bad president. This is because by raising the amount of years the president has in office, you are increasing the amount of time a bad president could make bad decisions. Also, we cannot just impeach a president for being bad, he has to commit a crime. In the constitution, article 2, section 4, it says: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This means impeachment happens only in the case of, I quote, "high crimes and misdemeanors". So if we have a bad president, and we have terms of 6 years, that president would pass a bunch of bad laws for 6 years, we would have very bad emergency action, which is something the president controls. This means that by having a term of 6 years, we are putting our safety at risk, because if we get attacked, we would be slow to react. Also, this bad president could create laws that would make us have to waste money and time to get rid of, and this bad president could knock down laws that took lots of time and money to create.

    Now to my second point: Having to go through 2 elections keeps presidents accountable. For instance, Obama said he was going to send more people to Afghanistan, but when he ran for re-election he said he withdraw the troops from Afghanistan, because he wouldn't have been voted for otherwise. Without this accountability check, presidents could pass a bunch of bad laws, and not care about what they did, because they know that they can't be taken out of office.

    Now to my final point: having an election every 6 years restricts freedom. Our country is a democracy, meaning the people make decisions. Having elections every 4 years allow people to choose more. That is what our country is founded on, having this choice. However, having an election not only restricts the freedom of the people, it restricts the freedom of the president. The president may WANT to only be in office for 4 years. If we force the president to either resign, which would be broadcast to the entire world and be very embarrassing, or have to be in office for 6 years against their will. Because of this, less people may run for president, meaning we will have worse presidents, and as I said before, if we have bad presidents for 6 years, they can cause lots of problems. Also, if the president wants to be in office for 8 years, they won't be able to, because they must go for 6 years.

  • Term-limits aren't justified

    There are a lot of arguments saying that the President would have too much power, but that isn't the case. People are the ones who vote on Presidents. They're not going to choose a President that would ruin their lives. For example, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt served for four terms. People elected him again and again because he was a good President. If a President becomes corrupted, he can be impeached, or he just won't be elected the next time elections come around.


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