Originally posted by MacSwainThe decision to impose term limits on the US President was a partisan decision made by a Republican congress horrified by the fact that Roosevelt's popularity had won the Democrats four consecutive elections.
US presidents for 150 years followed the un-written example set by G. Washington (who had refused Kingship) and adhered to his example of only two terms. F. Roosevelt broke this practice.
Note that quickly after F. Roosevelt disturbed congress by breaking that time-honored practice, it did not take long for congress to codify the two-term rule.
In any case, the precedent set by Washington was not absolutely honoured even before that; both Theodore Roosevelt and (incredibly) Ulysses Grant sought a third (albeit non-consecutive) term, although Grant failed to win the Republican nomination in 1880 and Roosevelt lost the 1912 election.
Originally posted by TeinosukeUh, Teinosuke, you do know that the Presidential term limits were a Constitutional Amendment (the 22nd) and not just federal Legislation, do you not?
The decision to impose term limits on the US President was a partisan decision made by a Republican congress horrified by the fact that Roosevelt's popularity had won the Democrats four consecutive elections.
You also do know that a Constitutional Amendment requires a vote of 2/3 of both houses and the approval of 3/4 of the states, neither of which the Republicans controlled at the time, do you not?
Maybe you want to re-think that assertion?
Originally posted by eljefejesusthat is a typical Latin-American problem, the power of the executive too often goes unchecked.
Uribe should not push to extend term limits during his own presidency, 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, following the letter of their constitution and legally removed Zelaya.
I find it curious the leftists have been successful in labeling their constitutional actions as a 'coup.'
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainThe constitution was foisted on Honduras by a military dictatorship in 1982 and appears to be unammendable and jealously guarded by the self same military. So the credibility of the so called "letter of the law" is open for discussion. They turned up in force, fully armed, without any warrant or documentation, at his house and sent the president into exile at gunpoint. What letter of the law was that again, exactly?
[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, following the letter of t urious the leftists have been successful in labeling their constitutional actions as a 'coup.'[/b]
Originally posted by sh76Originally posted by sh76 What's sauce for the goose...
What's sauce for the goose...
Seriously though, I like the idea of any new rule that expands power taking effect only with the successor of the person in office. The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution required that Congressional pay raises start only at the begining of the following term. I'd like to see this concept applied to all Constitutional Amendmen ...[text shortened]... media went bananas. Bloomberg is liberal enough so that the media barely covered the story.
Speaking of sauce - Why does this perplexing difference exist?
The office of president is the highest office one can acquire in the US. Yet it’s not deemed harmful, in fact it's deemed beneficial, to conducting the duties of office to impose a two- term limit. There is obviously no concern regarding learning curve of a new president.
While in congress, an office with much less impact, it’s claimed term limits would be fractious to government. Supposedly because congressional term limits would interfere with governance because “The period required for new members to ‘learn’ the job” is too great.
Originally posted by MacSwainThe argument, which I don't necessarily endorse, goes like this:
[b]Originally posted by sh76 What's sauce for the goose...
Speaking of sauce - Why does this perplexing difference exist?
The office of president is the highest office one can acquire in the US. Yet it’s not deemed harmful, in fact it's deemed beneficial, to conducting the duties of office to impose a two- term limit. There is obviously ...[text shortened]... with governance because “The period required for new members to ‘learn’ the job” is too great.[/b]
Term limits are necessary to limit the ability of the President to become too powerful. Making him a lame duck in his second term ensures that he doesn't garner enough power to pull a Chavez and/or become an autocrat. Even though there are Constitutional checks and balances, the President, with the Executive machinery at his beck and call, could garner too much power if her were a fixture in his office.
Yes, it's "fractious to government." But that's a legitimate price to pay to ensure the above goal.
With members of Congress, there simply is no danger of them becoming too powerful or autocratic, because they don't have all that much power to begin with. As term limits are therefore unnecessary, they don't justify the cost of being fractious to government.
Generally speaking, term limits are a phenomenon most related to executives (President, Governors, Mayors, etc.) in the US.
Originally posted by sh76If what I have read is true - "There are more lobbyists in Capitol that congressmen" it opens another point for conjecture.
The argument, which I don't necessarily endorse, goes like this:
Term limits are necessary to limit the ability of the President to become too powerful. Making him a lame duck in his second term ensures that he doesn't garner enough power to pull a Chavez and/or become an autocrat. Even though there are Constitutional checks and balances, the President, with ...[text shortened]... a phenomenon most related to executives (President, Governors, Mayors, etc.) in the US.
I have read many stories of bribery, graft and corruption in Capitol that have been discovered. I feel safe in presuming these stories are like an ice-berg. Only 10% is visable.
What if? A congressmen open to selling influence were only to be in office a few years, he may be worth only thousands. On the other hand, if he could be in office decades, it would be prudent to invest millions.
Originally posted by MacSwainDefine "bribery" or "corruption."
If what I have read is true - "There are more lobbyists in Capitol that congressmen" it opens another point for conjecture.
I have read many stories of bribery, graft and corruption in Capitol that have been discovered. I feel safe in presuming these stories are like an ice-berg. Only 10% is visable.
What if? A congressmen open to selling influence w ...[text shortened]... . On the other hand, if he could be in office decades, it would be prudent to invest millions.
"Senator, if you help get a provision in the budget bill that allocates $2,000,000 for re-building the harbor area, I guarantee you that the Dockworkers union will support you next election and we'll raise $250,000 for your re-election campaign."
Is that corruption?
If so, then I guess term limits would help curb it a bit.
If not, then I think your implication of how widespread corruption is, is a bit exaggerated.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76If that Senator is allowed to:
Define "bribery" or "corruption."
"Senator, if you help get a provision in the budget bill that allocates $2,000,000 for re-building the harbor area, I guarantee you that the Dockworkers union will support you next election and we'll raise $250,000 for your re-election campaign."
Is that corruption?
If so, then I guess term limits would help curb it a ...[text shortened]... not, then I think your implication of how widespread corruption is, is a bit exaggerated.
1- Draw monies from campaign funds for -any- personal expenditures.
2- Keep monies left in campaign funds after election.
YES...that is bribery & corruption, by anyones light.
*edit - Isn't this scenario (reported in news) more likely:
"Senator, if you help me get items that will be to my benefit and profit into the budget bill, I will give you this $90,000."
"Only one thing...I advise you to wrap the cash in aluminium foil and hide it in your freezer!"
Originally posted by MacSwainWell, the Bill Jefferson case was a one time thing. I haven't noticed too many other similar incidences recently regarding federal officials. Blago solicited bribes for a Senate appointment, but he was a state official (from Illinois of all places- the corruption capital of the US; apologizes to New Jersey). Most of the other scandals recently have been about officials failing to control their wee-wee.
If that Senator is allowed to:
1- Draw monies from campaign funds for -any- personal expenditures.
2- Keep monies left in campaign funds after election.
YES...that is bribery & corruption, by anyones light.
[b]*edit - Isn't this scenario (reported in news) more likely:
"Senator, if you help me get items that will be to my benefit and profit i ...[text shortened]... y one thing...I advise you to wrap the cash in aluminium foil and hide it in your freezer!"[/b]
I'm not sure what the rules for leftover campaign funds are, but I know you can't just keep them.
Originally posted by sh76Didn't Obama do that though?
Well, the Bill Jefferson case was a one time thing. I haven't noticed too many other similar incidences recently regarding federal officials. Blago solicited bribes for a Senate appointment, but he was a state official (from Illinois of all places- the corruption capital of the US; apologizes to New Jersey). Most of the other scandals recently have been about o ...[text shortened]... not sure what the rules for leftover campaign funds are, but I know you can't just keep them.
Originally posted by sh76Yeah - OK - I withdraw that tendentious comment.
Uh, Teinosuke, you do know that the Presidential term limits were a Constitutional Amendment (the 22nd) and not just federal Legislation, do you not?
You also do know that a Constitutional Amendment requires a vote of 2/3 of both houses and the approval of 3/4 of the states, neither of which the Republicans controlled at the time, do you not?
Maybe you want to re-think that assertion?
I believe some nineteenth-century Presidents, such as Rutherford Hayes, advocated restricting the President to a single term. Strangely enough, the criticism that most people have of term limits - that they turn the President into a lame duck - seems to me their greatest advantage. They free the President to pursue the agenda he was elected to pursue without having to worry about whether it will bolster or harm his re-election bid. One of the flaws of democracy is that short-term decisions are made for electoral gain, and a term limit does away with this.
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.