Should US presidents be allowed to serve more than two terms?

Topic:
Law Debates

17 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
35% of users

  • Yes, Presidents should be allowed to serve more then two term

    it should be up to the people how long a president stays in office NOT some stupid peace of ancient paper or antiquated ideas of a bunch of presidents who are long long dead.

    Yes Anonymous

  • Yess, Presidents should be allowed to serve more then two terms,

    because the President may be the best Presidentthe U.S. has ever had before so why would we only allow him eight years when he could be great long.

    Yes Anonymous

  • Presidents should be able to serve up to 3 terms to be able to see their policies implemented.

    The US presidency term of 4 years is very short and when one takes into account the time it takes to set up the government and related administrative structure, the time left for implementing change or new policy is nil. When a president is elected twice for office, his/her second term sees the implementation of the changes/laws decided during the first term. It would be useful, beneficial and cheaper for all US tax payers to let a president work a third term. During that third term, real work could actually be achieved and laws and changes carried through to completion.

    Yes NWinters

  • Yes, Presidents should be able to serve more than two terms because they could possibly be essential to our country and have to end their presidency just because the law says so.

    What if America was in poor shape and a really great president came along, fixed the country up and had us in the best shape of our history. Unfortunately, the president would have to leave after a second term and leave us with potentially detrimental change. One person can't be president forever and change will always occur, but extending a presidency to at least three terms seems like a good idea.

    Yes I33Iess

  • Yes they should be allowed to serve more than two terms.

    Yes , I agree that the US presidents should be allowed to serve more than two terms. The constitution of USA states that a president can serve four terms period. But the tradition and the practice started with George Washington who served only two term. And after him every other president served only for two terms. If a president feels that he is doing a good job and so do the citizens of the country US presidents should be allowed to serve more than two terms.

    Yes I0rFashion

  • I believe the US president should be allowed to serve as many terms as the people elect them to.

    A four-year term is nowhere near enough time to affect any real change in the country. If they are lucky enough to get elected to a second term then they might actually see a few results of their efforts. More than likely, though, the president that follows a two-term president will be from the other political party. This will most likely negate any change that has been made since most politicians? decisions are ego based shortsighted. If the majority of Americans are happy to keep re-electing a president then so be it.

    Yes BrianDj
Voice Your Opinion
No
65% of users

  • I don't believe that a President should serve for more than two terms, because it limits the amount of perspective in the executive branch.

    If a President were to serve for multiple terms, eventually political offices become filled with people who agree with his views. That's all well and good for situations suited toward those views. But, what if something comes along that is a disadvantage to those views? There won't be any majority well suited toward handling the situation. The beauty of a 2-term system is that it allows the ideals to adapt to a situation, and to stay up to date. That way, the American government remains a competent, well-oiled machine.

    No PuzzledCharles70

  • I oppose more than two terms for presidents, as this can imply a president is greedy for power and control above what the founding fathers wanted.

    I believe more than two terms is both wrong morally and anti-constitutional. By forcing term limits, it allows for continuous change in the country. A president wishing more than two terms is a greedy, power hungry individual, and should need to be removed, regardless of the citizens' voting choices. It forces change, so that a single president cannot influence a country for decades.

    No S Ward

  • It's important for power to change hands after a given amount of time.

    Presidential term limits ensure that the United States is guaranteed a change in leadership after a reasonable amount of time. Allowing a president to remain in office for an extended period of time creates the possibility for corruption of government, unfair concentration of governmental powers, and abuse of office. U.S. government is designed to be "by the people, for the people, and of the people", therefore, power should change hands regularly.

    No MarkBuII

  • I support and agree with the political path followed since our first president, George Washington.

    George Washington had decided to govern for only two terms. Since then presidents have followed in his footsteps not only to support him and his goals but in acceptance of the need for a change in political opinions and goals in America. Because of this historical choice taken by our government, I am in support of the two term limit of the presidency.

    No MistyElbert

  • No, because it is right that the founding fathers feared the idea of rulers that would not give up the reigns of power.

    We can see many examples in history of leaders that would not get out of the way of their people pursuing their own lives, and the devastation that it wreaked on the lives of ordinary people. If you have any doubts about the need for fresh blood from time to time, just look at what is happening over in Libya or Venezuela. Without a tradition of peaceful handing over of power, it becomes too easy for megalomaniacs to become addicted to the rush of power, and the consequences are rarely pretty.

    No wahsfone

  • The highest office in the nation should not be served for life

    This is the reality, the Presidency of the United States is the only national office. Not even a senator, because senators only represent their home states. The president is the leader of our country. Letting someone serve for life can lead to a king or a dictatorship. I understand representatives and senators serving for life. That's ok, since they're not leading the country. The whole reason that George Washington refused to run for a third term was because he didn't want to serve for life, which is what a king does, and monarchies are against the Constitution.

    No Anonymous

  • Term limits provide a means of ensuring that the people are properly represented.

    Term limits 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.

    No N3r0nKrooI

  • I do not believe that US Presidents should be allowed to serve more than two terms due to the 22nd amendment.

    The 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly states that no individual may serve more than two consecutive terms as President of the United States. Until that amendment is revised or removed, we are obligated to follow it. In addition, it is important to continue bringing "new blood" into all political offices lest ideas become stagnant.

    No 5h4rdBevon

  • Presidents should not be allowed to serve more than two terms.

    Term limits were added to the Constitution for a reason. Presidents should not be allowed to serve for more than two terms because it undermines the democratic process, giving one leader too much power. Before Roosevelt, presidents did not run for more than two terms by tradition and because they knew that serving for too long was not right for our country. After Roosevelt, the Constitution was changed to institutionalize what was once tradition.

    No NatBIab

  • I don't believe US presidents should serve more than two terms because it is unconstitutional.

    I don't believe that US presidents should serve more than two terms because it is stated in the Constitution, and I feel that if Presidents are in to long, they gain to much power and influence from special interest groups and others. So, limiting their terms helps alleviate that problem, and also, there were some terrible Presidents elected and if they were in longer, things would have gotten worse.

    No MycCra2ii

  • I do not think that presidents should be allowed to serve more than two terms because the limited amount of time they are given in office is an incentive for them to make sure their initiatives are carried out in a timely manner.

    Because a president has a limited amount of time in office, he (or someday maybe she) feels a sense of urgency in seeing the bills and programs they initiate put into action. This impulsiveness is limited by congressional approval, of course, so it's not as though a president can force things to happen without question or debate. I worry that the assurance of a longer time in office might lead to a lessening of the feeling of urgency to change things that are wrong with the country. It might even be replaced with a feeling of having all the time in the world to work things out. I think that one of the things that makes our government able to adapt quickly to changes in the world political climate is the limitation of presidential terms.

    No Shim2free
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Should US presidents be allowed to serve more than two terms?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource