CSA presidential term limits applied to the USA

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-03-30 09:40pm

The CSA had a limitations of one term of six years for their president to help prevent politicing for power by the serving president. Now suppose suh an issue got put forth right now for the U.S. constitution, would you support it?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-03-30 09:43pm

Yes, it's a damn good idea.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-30 10:17pm

No. A President that has six years and no thoughts of an upcoming election to make him worry about his image and reelection polls? Yeah. Bad.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-03-30 10:32pm

Rogue 9 wrote:No. A President that has six years and no thoughts of an upcoming election to make him worry about his image and reelection polls? Yeah. Bad.

I'll actually claim it could be a good idea for that very reason. without reelection being an issue, the Prez would be free to concentrate on actual problems, rather than trying to appease the public at every turn. Of course the root issue is that the system keeps electing scumfucks in the first place, that's the first thing that needs to be fixed.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-03-30 10:38pm

Let them be reelected as many times as they want, but keep them from running as incumbants.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-03-30 10:45pm

Silly and stupid. the current two term limit is enough, in fact I think it's restrictive. (I believe a similiar argument was brought up in the Federalist Papers)

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-03-30 11:32pm

Although I'm sure it could end re-election pandering getting in the way of progress, I wouldn't be surprised the actual beliefs of the politicians aren't much different. Although I can't think of any advantages the two-term model has over it, I'd still oppose such a measure.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2004-03-31 12:04am

Implenmenting such a system could go both ways, depending on the politican. Since he won't be endlessly trying to improve his public image for a re-election, he can focus on the issues. On the other hand, some politicians would just say 'Fuck it' and enjoy their 6 years in office.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-03-31 12:46am

Captain tycho wrote:Implenmenting such a system could go both ways, depending on the politican. Since he won't be endlessly trying to improve his public image for a re-election, he can focus on the issues. On the other hand, some politicians would just say 'Fuck it' and enjoy their 6 years in office.

That's why the possibility of impeachment exists...

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-31 12:48am

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
Captain tycho wrote:Implenmenting such a system could go both ways, depending on the politican. Since he won't be endlessly trying to improve his public image for a re-election, he can focus on the issues. On the other hand, some politicians would just say 'Fuck it' and enjoy their 6 years in office.
That's why the possibility of impeachment exists...

They could do that without doing anything worthy of impeachment. Being unpopular is not grounds for being removed from office in a Senate trial.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-03-31 01:15am

Rogue 9 wrote:No. A President that has six years and no thoughts of an upcoming election to make him worry about his image and reelection polls? Yeah. Bad.

Captain Tycho wrote:Implementing such a system could go both ways, depending on the politican. Since he won't be endlessly trying to improve his public image for a re-election, he can focus on the issues. On the other hand, some politicians would just say 'Fuck it' and enjoy their 6 years in office.

On the other hand, even a single-term president would have to consider how poor the chances for his party to retain power in the Congress and hold onto the White House would be if he did simply kick back and enjoyed his six years in office or fucked up economic or foreign policy bad enough. There would still be the incentive to perform in order to improve the party's position for the next election.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-03-31 11:20pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Although I'm sure it could end re-election pandering getting in the way of progress, I wouldn't be surprised the actual beliefs of the politicians aren't much different.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if politician's sincere belief tend to shift towards what will get them elected. The best way to sound sincere is to be sincere.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2004-04-01 05:51am

Rogue 9 wrote:No. A President that has six years and no thoughts of an upcoming election to make him worry about his image and reelection polls? Yeah. Bad.

Like Bush won't have to worry about being re-elected if he gets his second four year term? Yeah. Bad.

Don't vote for the incumbent!

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-01 05:54am

Sir Sirius wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:No. A President that has six years and no thoughts of an upcoming election to make him worry about his image and reelection polls? Yeah. Bad.
Like Bush won't have to worry about being re-elected if he gets his second four year term? Yeah. Bad.

Yeah, but he'd only have four years to do something about it, as opposed to six.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-04-01 05:45pm

6 years is not enough for a good president, and too much for a bad one.
4 years, then double or nothing.

I agree whole heartedly with closet sci-fi fan, as well, that changes in the constitution should be very few, and very far between.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-04-01 07:04pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:6 years is not enough for a good president, and too much for a bad one.
4 years, then double or nothing.

I agree whole heartedly with closet sci-fi fan, as well, that changes in the constitution should be very few, and very far between.

May I point out that my no incumbancy idea also lets you have as many terms of a president as you want, and also doesn't require any sort of amendmant?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-01 07:11pm

closet sci-fi fan wrote:I wouldn't support it simply because I'd like to minimize Constitutional changes.

originally there was no term limit in the constitution. that came into play later on. (i think it was woodrow wilson that set the precedent of two terms, but i forget who exactly).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CSA presidential term limits applied to the USA

Would you? Huh? Huh? Would you?

CSA presidential term limits applied to the USA