I propose that we consider repealing the 22nd Amendment, thereby removing the limitation of two terms or ten years for a president to serve in office. If We the People of the United States wish to elect a presidential candidate for more than two terms, we should have the right to do so. The decision on term limits should rest with the electorate; if the people choose not to reelect a candidate, that individual will simply not continue as president.
This proposal is not intended to benefit any specific individual, including Donald J. Trump, but rather applies to all future presidents. Why should We the People be denied the opportunity to retain a successful leader in office if doing so reflects our collective judgment of what is best for the country?
The 22nd Amendment was proposed by Congress, specifically initiated by the 80th United States Congress in 1947. This effort, largely led by the Republican Party, was introduced in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms as president.
However, why should Congress be the ultimate deciding authority on this matter, when the decision primarily affects the American people? The power to elect a presidential candidate for two terms, five terms, or more should rest solely with the American electorate, reflecting their will and vision for the nation’s leadership.
The amendment had to be ratified by 3/4 of the States through a state convention or by the State legislature. That is not determined by Congress, but by the state representatives of the people
My point wasn’t necessarily that congress was the one who immediately ratified the amendment more that it was congress who came up with the idea of the Amendment and deemed that it was what was necessary.
I was trying to get at that if the people of the United States wanted there to be term limits for the president then the people should’ve been the ones to vote for it. I couldn’t find anything stating that any official vote involving the American people was held. It was only voted on by state representatives elected by individual citizens.
Sure, all I was trying to communicate is that it takes an overwhelming majority of States to amend the Constitution. Only one amendment has been rescinded. The founders hated democracy because at the heart of it, it is mob rule. State legislators are about as close as you can get to the will of the people without having an election. Also a state convention would qualify to ratify an amendment. Rules would vary from state to state. This may be more in line with your thinking.
The limits are there as a protection. As such I am going to trust that protection. We need to do a better job allowing more qualified people to run and actually be voted on. That may mean checking on the costs etc that are a barrier.
I no longer agree with term limites for Congress after COVID. The few brave Congressmen that stood up and fought for citizens would have been eliminated with term limits.
We need to do a better job voting people like Pelosi out and correcting things like the ranked voting in California that results in only one party being on the General Election. They will just replace her with someone similar anyway.
Absolutely not. The rate of fraud in our elections makes that untenable. The lack of uniformity in election law across the states makes that untenable. The corruption in our politics makes that untenable. The wholesale purchase of politicians because of greed makes that untenable. If we thought the swamp of DC could not get any worse, imagine not having term limits. We need to institute term limits for Congress and change the laws to be able to fire government workers.
I disagree that we should do away with Presidential Term limits. While a third term for Trump would be interesting, I am not sure, I would want a third term of Obama and that is what the Dems would do.
If you look at the historical context, George Washington set the precedent that a President should only serve 2 terms, and all Presidents after him stuck to that precedent.
FDR pulled the country out of the great depression and was celebrated for that, and when he decided to run for a third and fourth term (both as the country was watching war brewing in Europe, and then when the country was deep in fighting that war), the country stood behind him. When he died 3 months into his fourth term, his Vice President (Harry S. Truman) took office, and returned to the precedent, by not running for a 3rd term (although the first term was a partial term).
Therefore the 22nd Amendment was passed to make the precedent the law of the land, and I believe it should remain.
I am of the belief that all elected officials should face a term limit - prior to the 17th Amendment in 1913, Senators faced a term limit of the state legislature (which appointed them), and historically most Senators would never serve over 12 years before the state legislature would replace them.
It’s funny everyone wants term limits on congress but now we want no term limits on presidents? Instead of getting rid of limits let’s extend their term to 5 years
A bad idea. Better to put 2 term limits on Senators and 4 term limits on Representatives. 16 years on SCOTUS justices. And 8 year limits of service on Bureaucrats who rise above whatever a field agent is in the Alphabet Slime, as well as 8 years limit above Captain in the military. Move the politicians in the hivernment up and out.
Presidential term limits make sense as they prevent a Dicatator who never leaves office.
Terms limits for Congress also creates a danger. Not willing to risk it. People like Soros etc fund corrupt DAs and politicians. It would make it much easier to take over by funding people. All they would need is for the right combination and number of seats to be open to put their control into place. It could lead to a very dangerous situation. If there are good people there we need to be able to keep them.
Instead we need to be doing exactly what was done this time around by getting information out there and citizens being more proactive.
Absolutely not. We need more term limits (meaning term limits on every office), not less. Holding office is meant to be a public service. Not a life long career or pathway to getting rich at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve.
I think we would have to look at the entire Constitution again if we were going to do that and I just don’t trust the politicians to do that. The Commerce clause has been used and abused so severely until that is brought under control I think it would be dangerous to give the power of more than 10 years/two terms
Read more history, FDR was the cause of the great depression, what was normal cyclical change in the economy turned into a nightmare fueled by price fixing, inflation and out of control central authority and central top down thinking.
Absolutely not. The issue is that authoritarians have historically manipulated elections in their favor, so they never go away. The 22A ensures that, no matter how powerful or authoritarian a leader, the worst possible options would have a limited stay.
Instead, let’s add term limits for all elected positions!!!
I don’t think that this is a good idea because the reason that we have the two term limitations is to keep a monarchy from happening. I will have to skip voting for this proposal