28 Jul 09
Originally posted by TeinosukeInteresting point. That reason, of course, is why federal judges have life tenure (to make them not beholden to the electorate)
Having said that, if you think that the function of term limits is to restrict the President's power, it could be argued that the lack of accountability inherent in knowing you're not going to present yourself again to the voters actually increases the President's power.
I guess term limits helps Presidential power to some extent, but it doesn't help the President's power get beyond that critical mass that allows him to turn himself into an autocrat. That specific power, which is the one we're trying to avoid, is hurt by term limits because it doesn't allow the President enough time to consolidate the power necessary to garner that much power..
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Maybe. But I think the original constitutional safeguards, and particularly the fact that you in the US have a clearly defined separation of powers, are probably more fundamental.
That specific power, which is the one we're trying to avoid, is hurt by term limits because it doesn't allow the President enough time to consolidate the power necessary to garner that much power..
Also, isn't eight years quite a long time in politics? If you look at the record of the only President to serve more than two terms, his most unconstitutional policy was his attempt to pack the Supreme Court. And that didn't happen in his third or fourth term.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFThe restriction on choice is minor because the number of times an electorate might want to re-elect a President to a third term is small.
Nobody's talking about how term limits restrict the democratic choice of voters. Strikes me as a bit strange.
On the other hand, human history suggest that the longer someone holds power, the less well they and their administrations govern. For many, they simply become more and more corrupt. Furthermore, individuals like Cincinnatus, George Washington, and Nelson Mandela who voluntarily give up power are rare.
Giving up a small amount of choice to avoid the danger of corruption and poor governance is viewed as acceptable and is simply one of many limits placed on democratic choice. Appointed judges and the Bill of Rights are other examples of where democratic choice has been appropriately restricted.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by MacSwainCompletely agree, both Zelaya and Uribe and Chavez are in the same boat, along with other leftist Latin American executives who think the rules ought not apply to them.
[b]that is a typical Latin-American problem, the power of the executive too often goes unchecked.
Exactly, just as ocurred most recently in Honduras with Mr. Zelaya in his effort to gain unlimited terms in power by changing the Honduran constitution. To stop his power grab the legislature & supreme court acted in concert, [i]following the letter of t ...[text shortened]... urious the leftists have been successful in labeling their constitutional actions as a 'coup.'[/b]
It's as hypocritical as Chavez's original failed attempted coup to get into power and his subsequent hollering and crying about attempted coups against him. What made him think he had any right to commit coups when he was seeking the powerful executive position of his country?
Leftists now celebrate such a shameful dictatorial figure as a democratic leader? Ridiculous! Almost as ridiculous as Fidel Castro opposing Zelaya's removal based on democratic principles.
What a bunch of disgusting hypocrits!