26 Jul 09
Originally posted by generalissimoHow does a lack of term limits encourage mob rule? As long as the authority of the president in question is limited by constitutional and legal safeguards, it should matter how many times he or she is re-elected.
because Im not a fan of mob rule, are you?
what countries do you speak of?
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by TeinosukeThen they will change all the rules, once they start it's hard too stop it.
How does a lack of term limits encourage mob rule? As long as the authority of the president in question is limited by constitutional and legal safeguards, it should matter how many times he or she is re-elected.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by TeinosukeIt is a "method to curb the potential for dictatorships, where a leader effectively becomes "president for life". There are different types of term limits. Sometimes, there is an absolute limit on the number of terms a person can serve, while, in other cases, the restrictions are merely on the number of consecutive terms a person can serve."
How does a lack of term limits encourage mob rule? As long as the authority of the president in question is limited by constitutional and legal safeguards, it should matter how many times he or she is re-elected.
the lack of these doesn't encourage mob rule, I was saying that using popular support in order to change the constitution for the leader's benefit is mob rule.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by generalissimoThat's a fair point. In which case, perhaps the debate should not be about term limits (after all, the US managed pretty well without these for more than 150 years), and more about the ease or difficulty with which a constitution can be changed.
the lack of these doesn't encourage mob rule, I was saying that using popular support in order to change the constitution for the leader's benefit is mob rule.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by TeinosukeI think the best example of mob rule would be hugo chavez.
That's a fair point. In which case, perhaps the debate should not be about term limits (after all, the US managed pretty well without these for more than 150 years), and more about the ease or difficulty with which a constitution can be changed.
he had the support of the people, and with their approval, he concentrated a large amount of power in the presidency, and extended his term so that he can avoid elections in case the people disapprove later on.
That is what we should avoid. term limits are not THE solution, but they help.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by generalissimoYes - the difference is the prime minister does not have all that much power to begin with. So if a president has too much power the solution is to reduce the power of the president, not the maximum length of his time in office.
the fact that one is leader for an undefined period of time is a great amount of power.
but the situation is different, since he wasn't a president.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFWhat's sauce for the goose...
Close U.S. ally President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia is seeking a constitutional amendment that would allow him to run for a third consecutive term.
Any thoughts?
Seriously though, I like the idea of any new rule that expands power taking effect only with the successor of the person in office. The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution required that Congressional pay raises start only at the begining of the following term. I'd like to see this concept applied to all Constitutional Amendments that expand power.
Mike Bloomberg is doing the same thing as NYC Mayor. He's limited to 2 terms so he had the City Council change the rule to allow him to run, which he is now preparing to do (I just saw a Bloomberg for Mayor commercial as I'm typing this post). When Giuliani's 2nd term was winding down there were rumors he was going to try something like that and of course the the NY media went bananas. Bloomberg is liberal enough so that the media barely covered the story.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Just have to be as creative as we are here in the United States. The way I see it they could come up with some kind of patriot act of their own and totally bypass their own constitution. 1 Create a terrorist event. 2 Quickly implement a patriot act before anyone can read it. 3 Enjoy doing whatever suits their fancy. The United States is a model for this, and it works.
What's sauce for the goose...
Seriously though, I like the idea of any new rule that expands power taking effect only with the successor of the person in office. The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution required that Congressional pay raises start only at the begining of the following term. I'd like to see this concept applied to all Constitutional Amendmen ...[text shortened]... media went bananas. Bloomberg is liberal enough so that the media barely covered the story.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by joe beyserThat doesn't sound good.
Just have to be as creative as we are here in the United States. The way I see it they could come up with some kind of patriot act of their own and totally bypass their own constitution. 1 Create a terrorist event. 2 Quickly implement a patriot act before anyone can read it. 3 Enjoy doing whatever suits their fancy. The United States is a model for this, and it works.
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by TeinosukeUS presidents for 150 years followed the un-written example set by G. Washington (who had refused Kingship) and adhered to his example of only two terms. F. Roosevelt broke this practice.
That's a fair point. In which case, perhaps the debate should not be about term limits (after all, the US managed pretty well without these for more than 150 years), and more about the ease or difficulty with which a constitution can be changed.
Note that quickly after F. Roosevelt disturbed congress by breaking that time-honored practice, it did not take long for congress to codify the two-term rule.