Term limits

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes.

The term limits aren't really "on" the President; they're on the People preventing them from exercising their choice in a free manner.

As far as that goes, there are other restrictions to be elected US President:

- be a natural born citizen of the United States;
- be at least thirty-five years old;
- have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

If we wanted to remove restrictions to increase freedom, I would remove the "natural born" requirement first (Go Arnold!), the age requirement second, the residency requirement third, and term limits last.

The reason term limits are so important is that they keep any mistakes from being permanent. They are an automatic self-correcting mechanism.

There is a huge benefit to the system when it is a given that NO administration can become entrenched. Knowing that you will one day be ruled by someone else makes currently serving individuals much more careful about putting in place measures that favor ONLY those in power.

The cost: lack of freedom of choice -- is fairly minimal. In a country of any size there will always be many, many equally qualified people for the job of President. And one is far more likely to get good new initiatives from a fresh President than an incumbent after eight years.

So the people win with term limits.

Originally posted by spruce112358
If we wanted to remove restrictions to increase freedom, I would remove the "natural born" requirement first (Go Arnold!),

You can't be serious. You want Arnold to do for the US what he has done for California?

Originally posted by whodey
You can't be serious. You want Arnold to do for the US what he has done for California?

I like Arnie, and I don't hold him responsible for everything that goes wrong in California.

It's probably a personal bias, but I think the perspective of having lived outside the United States is a huge bonus in the job of President. Like Obama.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I like Arnie, and I don't hold him responsible for everything that goes wrong in California.

It's probably a personal bias, but I think the perspective of having lived outside the United States is a huge bonus in the job of President. Like Obama.

What exactly do you like about the man? He has performed abysmaly and has even run up a bigger deficit than his predocessor. By all accounts he is a failure!!

Originally posted by whodey
What exactly do you like about the man? He has performed abysmaly and has even run up a bigger deficit than his predocessor. By all accounts he is a failure!!

I blame legislatures for fiscal problems like that. They are the ones who have to fix the legacy of Proposition 13.

Originally posted by spruce112358
As far as that goes, there are other restrictions to be elected US President:

- be a natural born citizen of the United States;
- be at least thirty-five years old;
- have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

If we wanted to remove restrictions to increase freedom, I would remove the "natural born" requ ...[text shortened]... a fresh President than an incumbent after eight years.

So the people win with term limits.

All of those limitations made sense at the time considering the example they were most familiar with was a German born prince being King of England (Go George!). All of them could be ended now as far as I'm concerned.

I fail to see how a "mistake" electing someone is "permanent" when there's another election scheduled four years later. The next election is the only "self-correcting mechanism" necessary or desirable.

Your guesswork as to the effect of new administrations are noted, but that's hardly a historically accurate presentation. And it's only your opinion, others may well (and do) have a different one. It's safe to say that a lame duck President like Bush II was last year hardly ever accomplishes anything of note, for example. Anyway, that decision should be left up to the People, not artificially stripped from them.

The People lose any time they are treated like children who can't be trusted to make the "correct" decisions. That's all term limits do and why they are inappropriate in a democracy.

EDIT: Your title is ironic given your position against democracy in this matter.

Originally posted by whodey
But what if power is increased by their continuing to get elected? If they are able to secure power in their voting districts, they then form a monopoly of sorts. Then as they continually get elected, you then create powerful Senators on a national level like that of Kennedy. No doubt about it, the lack of term limits increase the power of these politicians as a whole so if it bothers you they should have term limits.

In Sweden, social democrats have been in power for about 60 of the last 70 years. Yet, the party did not succeed in, or even attempt to create a one-party state or something like that - corruption is even much lower than in the US. If the checks and balances are solidly in place, they will stay in place. A term limit is not a check or balance, it is an implicit acknowledgement of the fact that the checks and balances are lacking.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[ A term limit is not a check or balance, it is an implicit acknowledgement of the fact that the checks and balances are lacking.[/b]

Yes!! So with them lacking as they seem to be today, why not have them?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In Sweden, social democrats have been in power for about 60 of the last 70 years. Yet, the party did not succeed in, or even attempt to create a one-party state or something like that - corruption is even much lower than in the US. If the checks and balances are solidly in place, they will stay in place. A term limit is not a check or balance, it is an implicit acknowledgement of the fact that the checks and balances are lacking.

In Kingdom of North Korea, the House of Il has been in power for 36 years. There have been 2 kings in the dynasty, and a third heir-apparent is being groomed.

In the Kingdom of Cuba, the House of Castro has been in power for 49 years. There have been 2 kings in the dynasty.

Kings and strongmen and their supporters hate term limits.

Originally posted by spruce112358
In Kingdom of North Korea, the House of Il has been in power for 36 years. There have been 2 kings in the dynasty, and a third heir-apparent is being groomed.

In the Kingdom of Cuba, the House of Castro has been in power for 49 years. There have been 2 kings in the dynasty.

Kings and strongmen and their supporters hate term limits.

You do know Sweden has elections...?

Originally posted by whodey
Yes!! So with them lacking as they seem to be today, why not have them?

Why not just have the proper checks and balances? Let's start by removing all power of the president in appointing judges.