Bill Clinton raised an issue that has always been controversial: changing the terms limits on the US Prez. After 4 terms of FDR, the Repulican government in 1951 set limits on the President's term in office.

www.msnbc.com/news/920115.asp (http://www.msnbc.com/news/920115.asp)

This was probably blatant politics. They were already at work trying to dismantle the New Deal, although despised by neo-cons, may have saved our democratic institutions. 60 years later the neo-cons are still at their work of destroying FDR's work.

How many think that this should be changed back to no limits? Also, since many on SP are not American, feel free to still vote, but also tell the rest of us about the issue of terms limits in your country. I think it would be good to hear how other nations deal with this issue.

Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 8 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: 8 More Years of Bill - The 22nd Amendment (8 votes.)

8 More Years of Bill - The 22nd Amendment (Choose 1)
* Yes, give Bill eight more. - 38% (3)
* Hell no, we've seen enough of Bubba! - 38% (3)
* It doesn't matter anyway because Bill is just Bush lite. - 25% (2)

The real question is, could Clinton get re-elected even if he could run. I don't think so, there is just too much dirt on him, but then the verdict is still out on the WMD in Iraq, so Bush is a vulnerable. That said, there really isn't a groundswell or grassroots movement to get the 22nd repealled or modified. The first I heard of it came straight from the donkey's mouth, not real classy, as you really should have someone else standing up for you on something like this. :(

There has been a major turn to conservatism in middle America (class and geography), and unless something was to shame the Republicans worse than Clinton and Carter's antics, Clinton wouldn't stand a chance.

What ever happened to the days when Presidents retired, got out of the limelight, and had a little class? I am not sure which of them is making a bigger fool of themselves, but C&C need to go off and start playing golf now that Bubba finally found a Country Club that would accept him, and get the hell out of the news. Of course, Bubba probably thinks that he is helping set up "the most intelligent woman in the world" :rolleyes: for her run at the Presidency. God help us all should that ever come to pass.

Ann Coulter (the actual most intelligent woman in the world) for VP in 2008 and President in 2012. :D

On Ann Coulter -- When it comes to "slander," she wrote the book on it. But I agree I think Bill looks pretty self-serving on this issue. Typically, and as usual, he is thinking of his own interests. But he is the ultimate pragmatist. That is what some of us both admire and can't stand about him.

Still, I would like to see it changed, because the People have the right to elect whom they want. Why should they have their democratic right to vote abridged by the government?

Even though I think Bill Clinton was an excellent president, I support the 22nd Amendment.

The idea of having a president be in office for a large number of terms in very dangerous. Over time, they could gain too much power and the U.S. Presidency could fall to the near-tyrant examples we see throughout the world.

Another reason that the 22nd Amendment is good, is that the president has a very finite time in office. They will work hard during their 4 (or 8) years to make a difference. Policies are constantly reevaluated and the failure (and ego) of one president will not be followed into the next administration. A good example of this is Palenstein. Clinton supported Arafat, but Bush changed that policy recognizing that Arafat was part of the problem rather than the solution.

We have no term limits here in Canada, and that SUCKS! We've had the same Prime Minister for over 10 years, IIRC. He's an . . . I won't say what he is, but it's bad. Everyone calls him a dictator. Now, he's not -- things aren't that bad here in Canada -- but he DOES wield too much power and the checks on his authority are far too weak.

I loved Reagan (yeah, I know, he was whacky, but still!) but I still believe that 2 terms should be enough for anyone. If they want more, they can be Senators -- no limits there IIRC!

I support the amendment as well. A president wield a truckload of power, he/she should not be allowed to stay in power for more than two terms. It is bound to lead to grief. I would like to see a third party president though, the dems are more or less GOP with a different facade.

We have no president here but we have primeministers and there are no limit on them, we have had some very powerful ones but a prime is never the same as a president.

A. Yep, a president shouldn't be in office more then 8 years, except it's FDR of course.

B. We have a term restriction for the Federal President of one year.

C. Our 7 Federal councils (~Prime Ministers) have no time restrictions at all and usually stay as long they get re-elected. They usually stay about 8 years and then resign, because they had enough and want to do something else.