Should a president's term be 2 years?

[yg17]

Dubya's last term is possibly the biggest reason myself or anyone would support shortening a president's term to 2 years. Anything can happen in 4 years, and we're stuck. In 2004, Bush (barely) won. 2 years later, no one in this country can stand him, and if the midterms were any indication of what Americans think of him, then it's obvious we want him out...but we're stuck.

Obviously, I know my opinion on this is meaningless, but it might be good discussion. I think a president's term should be 2 years, with a 4 term limit, still allowing one to serve 8 years. And if they do a good job, the people like them and choose to re-elect them, then they can still serve those 8 years, but if they completely fail at their job as president, then we can get them out quicker, before they have a chance to ***** up the country even more. Of course, the only bad thing is, it would be constant, nonstop campaigning and I know most of us get sick of the mudslinging that goes on between 2 candidates.

Thoughts?

[zimv20]

assuming that:
1. it takes an administration a year to really get organized and find its bearings, and
2. campaigning takes nearly a year

... then i don't see how much of anything could get done in a 2 year term.

i don't think the problem is term length or limits, i think it's that the voting public tends to be woefully uninformed on the issues and way too emotional and impractical when making voting decisions.

[MACDRIVE]

That would just mean that the idiots would vote him in 4 times instead of just 2. :cool:

[compuwar]

With a hostile Congress, you'd effectively hamstring any President who was from the "other side." Personally, I'd prefer to see limits on two terms for Congresscritters. Professional politicians are an idea the founding fathers didn't anticipate.

[Aniej]

I absolutely despise Bush and the policies and actions his administration have put forward. I cannot begin to tell you how much of a distaste I have for people who are clearly not that smart (don't post a bs comment about how he is a smart politician for how he associates with people, that is not the issue I am addressing) and then hold such notions of self-grandeur that they will only listen to people who support their view and completely dismiss, without addressing the merits (I wonder why), the opposing view.

With that said, I completely disagree with the concept of having a President serve 2 year terms, even if it were by way of a four term limit thereby keeping the availability of 8 years. I am going to be brief b/c it's late and a fully developed answer requires much more than I am willing to spend on MR. The reason I do not support this idea is because a 2 year term significantly reduces the efficacy of a president and introduces even greater instability into the executive branch. The most problematic manifestation of the concerns I raised would be the inability for a President see to completion many, many policy decisions and programs. Obviously the rebuttal to that point is well if he/she is good enough there will not be a problem seeing the policy out. While we can debate this "electability" argument, the reality is that the executive is meant to provide stable leadership (ignoring qualitative considerations obviously. Furthermore, people tend to forget that the President, while the specific person elected, brings with him/her an enormous amount of people that fill the top tiers of every agency, their departure would still cause further disruption. Campaigns would dominate more than they already do, etc.

My final point as to why this would be a bad idea, or rather, unnecessary when assessed with relation to constitutional principles and the objectives of the Federalist Papers. Specifically, the entire purpose of a 435 member 2 year legislative body (the House of Representatives ) is that they serve as the representative body of the American people and that their elections are held at such rapid intervals so as to express the sentiment of the American public.

[Aniej]

With a hostile Congress, you'd effectively hamstring any President who was from the "other side." Personally, I'd prefer to see limits on two terms for Congresscritters. Professional politicians are an idea the founding fathers didn't anticipate.

That is simply not correct. Professional politicians were abundant during the 18th Century and 19th Century. The lines were less clearly defined as to what constituted a professional politician. Instead these individuals took on roles that would be best understood as public citizens, such as Benjamin Franklin for example. Today, there is definitely a different and more clearly defined approach; one that is quite often described as professional politics. I agree the level to which it has been taken is problematic, but I do not agree with the notion that the Constitutional framers did not anticipate the "professional politician."

[compuwar]

That is simply not correct. Professional politicians were abundant during the 18th Century and 19th Century. The lines were less clearly defined as to what constituted a professional politician. Instead these individuals took on roles that would be best understood as public citizens, such as Benjamin Franklin for example. Today, there is definitely a different and more clearly defined approach; one that is quite often described as professional politics. I agree the level to which it has been taken is problematic, but I do not agree with the notion that the Constitutional framers did not anticipate the "professional politician."

You're right, I stand corrected. I think describing it as professional politics is accurate given folks like Senator Kennedy and Senator Bird. Perhaps my thinking is more slanted by George Mason than I thought, as he detested the thought of a professional politician and the idea of citizens serving briefly and then returning to private life seems to have been a cornerstone of his thinking, and my understanding of "Of the People" was that the founders and framers didn't anticipate the US having a political class.

[mactastic]

You're right, I stand corrected. I think describing it as professional politics is accurate given folks like Senator Kennedy and Senator Bird. Perhaps my thinking is more slanted by George Mason than I thought, as he detested the thought of a professional politician and the idea of citizens serving briefly and then returning to private life seems to have been a cornerstone of his thinking, and my understanding of "Of the People" was that the founders and framers didn't anticipate the US having a political class.
Problem with term limits is that it doesn't stop professional politicians. They just move from office to office, and never learn the intricacies of their field. Remember, most "Congresscritters" sit on committees that specialize in some area. Transportation, finance, defense, etc. When they first show up, they are not likely more than casually acquainted with that field. It takes several years to become expert enough to formulate good public policy, and committees are where the nitty gritty of the legislative process really happens.

[Chundles]

We're having the opposite argument here, our PM's have a maximum term length of 3 years (no limit on how many terms you can act as PM) and because the PM can call and election whenever he/she wants it could be much less than 3 years.

Most people are in agreement that it should be 4 years as ~3 years is not enough to get anything done - they just make promises and plans for the next term rather than the current one.

It's an election year here this year, will be interesting to see if Harry Potter, Hermione and the rest of the Labor Party can put up a fight against Little Johnny. Somehow I doubt it.

[Swarmlord]

No, for at least two reasons. First, the term length is specified in the Constitution and making changes like that would be next to impossible and a waste of time. Second, does anyone want to double the amount of Presidential campaigning that goes on from year to year?

I think it would be easier to justify increasing the terms of Congress critters to three or four years than to shorten the terms of any of the branches of government.

Changing laws based on a single person or event is never good policy. Remember that until Roosevelt archived himself into the position for a record four terms, there was no law limiting the number of terms that the President could have.

[IJ Reilly]

If a Constitutional change was to be made, I'd rather see a president serve for only one, six-year term.

[Dont Hurt Me]

If a Constitutional change was to be made, I'd rather see a president serve for only one, six-year term.
I disagree, 6 years is to long if you get someone like Bush, I also think that a president shouldnt be limited to 2 terms. If we get a good president lets keep him for as long as we can. I think our current problems rests on the fact that a republican congress was corrupt and did no oversite at all on George.

[skunk]

How about one nine-year term during which his (or her) foot must not touch the ground, followed by immolation?

[xsedrinam]

A four year term is a two edged sword. For the good ones, it's necessary for settling in to the job and for implementation of good policy. For the bad ones, eighteen months seems too long. Maybe a vote of confidence prior to mid-term could be put in place which had some Constitutional teeth to it where an outrageously poor performance by a president could be called by the public who voted him/her in, though there would likely be too many problems with the logistics and ramifications of such a thing.

Living in a country which has had like 8 Presidents in 10 years, I'd say that precedent lends little credence to such an idea or model.

[IJ Reilly]

If you create a "no confidence" (recall) process, then every president would find him or herself constantly facing recall efforts -- because that's the nature of politics. I like the single six-year term because it gives the president a decent opportunity to implement their policies, without the overhang of a reelection campaign. Sure, we could end up with a bad president for those six years, but it's not like the current system hasn't given us a bad president for eight.

[aquajet]

I don't think so, for reasons already mentioned. In fact, I might consider a five or six year presidential term more appropriate for the same reason.

In reality, how often do we have a president who has shown such reckless disregard and incompetence as the Bush administration? Weird times indeed.

On a side note, I would actually like to see the 22nd amendment repealed. If the people are satisfied with a particular leader, why not allow him/her to continue to serve past eight years?

[skunk]

If you create a "no confidence" (recall) process, then every president would find him or herself constantly facing recall efforts -- because that's the nature of politics.That has not happened in the UK or many other countries which have a "No-confidence" option.

[Lord Blackadder]

Two years is too short. Heck, when we have an effective president (I won't say "good", that's too subjective), four years seems to short.

But I would hesitate to change the term law, it has worked reasonably well so far. It ain't broke, so...

[IJ Reilly]

On a side note, I would actually like to see the 22nd amendment repealed. If the people are satisfied with a particular leader, why not allow him/her to continue to serve past eight years?

Because of the unique nature of the office. It's the only branch of the federal government controlled by one person.

That has not happened in the UK or many other countries which have a "No-confidence" option.

Not to belabor the obvious too much, but U.S. politics are not the same as elsewhere if only because we don't have a parliamentary system. The Legislative and the Executive are separate branches of government with separate and distinct powers which were designed to be in tension. If the Congress had the power to directly attack the office of the President, then you can be sure it would become routine, whenever the government was divided politically.

[aquajet]

Because of the unique nature of the office. It's the only branch of the federal government controlled by one person.

Well yeah, but does that really invalidate my reason?

[rdowns]

If a Constitutional change was to be made, I'd rather see a president serve for only one, six-year term.

As polarized as this country is, I don't think we could get any Constitutional amendment passed short of one giving out free money.

[IJ Reilly]

Well yeah, but does that really invalidate my reason?

Invalidate? Not really. It just makes for a counter-argument.

As beloved as FDR was by most of the nation, it was recognized that he'd become an increasingly imperial president and that perhaps it wasn't wise for the nation to place so much power in the hands of one person for such a long time. I tend to think this is true. I also believe the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate presidents serving for multiple terms.

[Dont Hurt Me]

If you create a "no confidence" (recall) process, then every president would find him or herself constantly facing recall efforts -- because that's the nature of politics. I like the single six-year term because it gives the president a decent opportunity to implement their policies, without the overhang of a reelection campaign. Sure, we could end up with a bad president for those six years, but it's not like the current system hasn't given us a bad president for eight.
I agree with not having the recall thingy but six years is a long time not to have to answer to someone. Bush has shown how a president can use an excuse to do anything he wants as long as his party runs congress. Torture,ignoring law etc. By having to run in 4 years he has to pay some attention to the voters desires, a 6 yr term would just have a guy off and doing anything knowing full well he would never have to answer for his actions to the electorate. Thats why I like the 4 yr term.

[Zwhaler]

I think that only any member of the Bush family gets 2 years, everyone else gets four:D

[MacNut]

I think that only any member of the Bush family gets 2 years, everyone else gets four:DYou might want to extend that too the Clinton family too.:D

And I agree that windbags like Kennedy have been there far to long.

[calculus]

I think that only any member of the Bush family gets 2 years

I'd give them twenty to life

[IJ Reilly]

And I agree that windbags like Kennedy have been there far to long.

The voters of Massachusetts apparently would not agree with you.

[MacNut]

The voters of Massachusetts apparently would not agree with you.They are also Red Sox fans so what do they know.:p

[IJ Reilly]

They are also Red Sox fans so what do they know.:p

Ouch! :eek:

[aquajet]

And I agree that windbags like Kennedy have been there far to long.

You are of course free to make comments (and personal attacks) against Kennedy even though you are not amongst the people he represents. But it's neither productive nor insightful without an explanation.

[aquajet]

As beloved as FDR was by most of the nation, it was recognized that he'd become an increasingly imperial president and that perhaps it wasn't wise for the nation to place so much power in the hands of one person for such a long time. I tend to think this is true. I also believe the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate presidents serving for multiple terms.

FDR of course entered the Presidency while the country was in a dire situation, so it's arguable that the fact his Presidency was longer than any other perhaps worked in our favor during our recovery. His was an exception due to the fact that the US was seriously f'ed up at the time, not unlike our current situation.

If FDR's imperialism is an argument for term limits, then any other bad policy in the eyes of the people must be an argument as well. If a president does bad things during his first term, then the people can vote for change during the next election. The people can do the same thing after ten years should a president begin to overstep the boundaries of the office. If the 22nd didn't exist, I think it's clear at this point that Bush wouldn't be able to win a third term, and there's no doubt in my mind that he would run again if he was able. I believe that we should have the option of allowing our President to serve as long as we see fit, and I have faith that this country will do the right thing should things go horribly wrong.

As a side note, it's interesting to think about how things would have panned out had FDR's brain not exploded. :( Also wonder about what FDR would say about things today.

[IJ Reilly]

FDR of course entered the Presidency while the country was in a dire situation, so it's arguable that the fact his Presidency was longer than any other perhaps worked in our favor during our recovery. His was an exception due to the fact that the US was seriously f'ed up at the time, not unlike our current situation.

If FDR's imperialism is an argument for term limits, then any other bad policy in the eyes of the people must be an argument as well. If a president does bad things during his first term, then the people can vote for change during the next election. The people can do the same thing after ten years should a president begin to overstep the boundaries of the office. If the 22nd didn't exist, I think it's clear at this point that Bush wouldn't be able to win a third term, and there's no doubt in my mind that he would run again if he was able. I believe that we should have the option of allowing our President to serve as long as we see fit, and I have faith that this country will do the right thing should things go horribly wrong.

As a side note, it's interesting to think about how things would have panned out had FDR's brain not exploded. :( Also wonder about what FDR would say about things today.

Two dire situations, one after another.

At the beginning, it was sort of a gentleman's agreement that no president should serve for more than two terms. It was a deal that held for a long time. Nobody even tried until Grant (I believe) and then Theodore Roosevelt -- and both failed. I don't know that FDR would have tried himself had the country not been on the brink of war and he might not have been reelected had it not been for the war.

I'm not a big fan of term limits by any means, but I can see the point where the presidency is concerned. I suspect if the framers had thought that any president would be interested in serving for more than two terms, that they would have included that limitation in the Constitution from the start. A powerful executive was a novel idea, and they were mindful of the balancing of powers and the desire not to create another monarch.

[solvs]

You might want to extend that too the Clinton family too.:D

The Kennedys are hit and miss, but I'd take Chelsea over either of the Bush twins any day. Er, for public office that is. :o Same for any of the Bush kids I'm aware of.

Hillary's another matter of course, but I do find it funny that I seem to know more bad things about her than most of the people I've met who hater her so much. ;)