Would you be in favor of the president being able to serve for more than two terms, if the public continued to elect him? Why/why not?

On one hand, a lot of people would not have been happy if George Bush had won a third term, a lot of people can't even figure out why he got a second term, and I can understand that because on the off chance that Obama would ever get elected again, I sure as hell would not be comforted by the fact that after the second batch of 4 years is up he could still be in the White House screwing everything up.

^^^^^ Nice one Supernova. lol

My answer: HELL NO! We need fresh leadership on a regular basis. If we allowed unlimited terms, a total idiot could maintain power simply because he's a popular person and not because he's a good leader. Also, even if I like a president, I don't want them to "hang onto the job like a pope," to to quote Archie Bunker. The White House has grayed every president for decades; it's a tough job. After 8 years of service, I am sure they are eager to get back to their lives and I don't wanna selfishly hang onto them. (I am sure nobody was happier to see Bush leave the White House than W. himself.)

So no, 2 terms is a good limit. After that, it's time for a fresh face.

Yeah, I remember the morning after Bush and his wife left Washington and went back home to Texas, and he told everybody 'tomorrow, I'm going to get up and cook Laura breakfast, walk the dog, get the newspaper, mow the lawn, read a book, and that's just before breakfast'.

I like the 2 term limit. A refresh every 4-8 years is a good thing.

Supernova wrote:

Yeah, I remember the morning after Bush and his wife left Washington and went back home to Texas, and he told everybody 'tomorrow, I'm going to get up and cook Laura breakfast, walk the dog, get the newspaper, mow the lawn, read a book, and that's just before breakfast'.

Yup. IDK who would even WANT to run for a third term, and if they do, we probably don't want them as president in the first place.

Chris wrote:

Would you be in favor of the president being able to serve for more than two terms, if the public continued to elect him? Why/why not?

Chris, do you mean a repel of the 22nd Amendment that was ratified in 1951? Until FDR was elected to a 3rd & 4th term, no other U.S. president had ever been elected to more than two terms anyway. Certain factions have been trying to repeal it ever since.

In Canada, our prime minsters can serve more than two terms but we also don't have a set election every 4 years. There are pros and cons. One of our most famous PMs served from 1969-1980 and 1980-1984. He was controversial but he really lead Canada through some rough times and he gave us our current Constitution. My parents remember him very fondly. With other PMs, though, it would be nice to see change. Our whole system is different though. We don't' elect our PM directly. We elect party members and the one with the most party members is the party whose leader becomes out prime minister. Than can allow for things to change, if they feel a leader really isn't doing a good job, such as when Chretien stepped down and Martin took over.

No. Term limits provide a means of ensuring that the people are properly represented. Term limits also help to ensure that democracy is ensured in that no one is allowed to gain too much power in government. By ensuring that no President can serve more than two terms, democracy ensures that competing voices continue to emerge in politics.