Question of the Week: Presidential Term Limits
Now, I know there are some Democrats who honestly believe that Bush wants to be emperor or that there is a conspiracy of some kind of dynasty to keep Republicans in the White House. Personally, as an independent, I am not convinced by these theories and I believe our system works.
However, I do think our system can use some tweaking and the 22nd amendment is where I would start. Some people believe there should be no term limits (Clinton, Reagan and Eisenhower all criticized the amendment). Some people believe that things are fine the way they are. And some believe the term should be changed altogether to one six year term.
I have my own views on the subject, but will wait to share them at the end of the week. My question to you is what do you think? Is it fine the way it is, should there be no term limit or should we have a major overhaul in how we look at terms and re-election. Tell us why you pick your choice too. I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
posted by Anonymous @ 10:27 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
I think the six year term idea would be the best option. If you look at the cost of campaigning that would be greatly reduced.
Also it would not distract from the president doing his job. Who needs to be working on the campaign for relection when government business needs to be done.
Six years would be a great compromise. It would allow a president to accomplish a lot but is not too long before change can offer something new to the people.
Post a Comment
<< Home