2 constitutional amendments needed...

[kypride]

Truman, Kennedy and Lincoln all served in congress and if this was in place could have prioritized becoming congressional leaders at that time.

[Jumper_Dad]

If people who dream of being president know the new requirements going in they may zig or zag a little different along the way. George W was governor of Texas by the way. Obama could certainly have risen to democrat senate leadership if it was important to him and the dems at the time.

 

Up and comers in the Senate could also be easily blocked and locked out for example, even in their own party. You'd only have old school candidates coming forward for "Their Turn" every 4 years. President Obama would still be years from getting a chance, as many others in the Senate would have thought they deserved a shot first and would have put a young or new senator in a leadership position.

[Jumper_Dad]

It's good in theory, but telling people what they can and can't do after leaving office sounds like the type of government overreach that we'd have a big problem with normally. It's a bit much for me.

 

We already have it in some cases...Read just this week that a former military person could not be SecDef for 7 years after leaving the military...unless Congress gives them a waiver.

[kypride]

Up and comers in the Senate could also be easily blocked and locked out for example, even in their own party. You'd only have old school candidates coming forward for "Their Turn" every 4 years. President Obama would still be years from getting a chance, as many others in the Senate would have thought they deserved a shot first and would have put a young or new senator in a leadership position.

 

Dang, that sucks. Run for Governor of Illinois or join the army then and produce a track record of leading a large organization related to government.

[kypride]

I just voted for Donald Trump and I am proposing something that would have barred him from becoming president. I think my motivation is pure. Imagine if Trump had come up this way and known his path to be president involved winning governor of New York first? Would he have still gotten elected? Maybe not. Would we know more about how he would act as president? Hell, yes.

[PP1]

I am against term limits for any office. If we the people decide we want the same senator, congressman, or president and we vote to elect them 10 straight times, then it is our business.

 

This usually comes up in Ky for people that do not like Mitch McConnell. But I citizens should have the right to elect who they wish.

 

If Bill Clinton could have ran for President a third time in 2000, I wonder if he would have defeated George W. Bush?

 

Could President Obama had defeated Donald Trump?

 

I think we should let the people decide. What is someone is an amazing President and we really want them to continue it beyond 10 years?

[Getslow]

I am against term limits for any office. If we the people decide we want the same senator, congressman, or president and we vote to elect them 10 straight times, then it is our business.

 

This usually comes up in Ky for people that do not like Mitch McConnell. But I citizens should have the right to elect who they wish.

 

If Bill Clinton could have ran for President a third time in 2000, I wonder if he would have defeated George W. Bush?

 

Could President Obama had defeated Donald Trump?

 

I think we should let the people decide. What is someone is an amazing President and we really want them to continue it beyond 10 years?

 

For me, the presidency is a different animal and the 22nd Amendment was a good thing. Under our constitution, the executive branch is already very strong compared to say, a prime minister under a parliamentary system. The potential for abuse in the executive office is too great and someone holding executive power that long will find away to concentrate even more power in the executive office.

 

Apart from that, I agree with you and I don't favor term limits for Congress.

[Jumper_Dad]

Truman, Kennedy and Lincoln all served in congress and if this was in place could have prioritized becoming congressional leaders at that time.

 

Truman would have never made it to leader, Kennedy was years and years away from a leadership position and Lincoln probably wouldn't have made leader either, at least not in time to deal with the Civil War.

 

I understand what your goal is, but I just feel that we have to keep the pool as large as possible without restricting it. Many are looking to Corey Booker to run against Trump in 4 years already, under your plan he would have to go run for Governor first, join the military and work his way up to General or come into congress or the senate as a junior member and assume a leadership roll...all before even being allowed to run. I'm sorry I just can't agree on these limits. Maybe expand them some and it would be something to look at, but I think I'll always be against limiting. Of course that could all change if we have Miley Cyrus as a candidate in the future.

[Jumper_Dad]

Dang, that sucks. Run for Governor of Illinois or join the army then and produce a track record of leading a large organization related to government.

 

You could argue running a large corporation or University would also equally qualify you. Taking Politics out of it, if you can effectively lead a Fortune 500 company or Stanford University you probably have what it takes to be President also. I'd like candidates to have the experience you speak of, but I don't want to put limits on it because it will only perpetuate "Ol Boy" politics even more.

[Voice of Reason]

I am in favor of term limits. I do not want short terms. I want experience and good statesmen to stay in office, but I do not want lifetime holds on offices. With all the money needed to run a viable race, incumbents have as strong an advantage as they ever have. My number has been 20 years, but the more I have thought about this I believe 24 years works better. You can get to that 24 years in a number of ways - 6 years in the House and three terms in the Senate; 4 terms in the Senate; 12 years in the House and two terms in the Senate. I would exclude the Presidency from this. I don't want experienced, successful legislators to be excluded from running for President.

 

On the Electoral College, I want it to stay. Similar to comments by others above, I don't want a very few large states to decide the election. Trump and Clinton had to go to New Hampshire at the end of the campaign. That never happens if there is no Electoral College. I do have one big concern though - rogue electors. We have now seen two extremely close elections in the past 5 presidential races. If the race were within say 5 votes, a few electoral college electors could decide to go against their state choice and decide an election. There was one democratic selected elector that stated after becoming an elector that he/she would not vote for Clinton no matter what the state's rules said. There were very possible and real scenarios where this election could have been within one elector vote. I don't want one rogue elector deciding an election. That is where there needs to be reform and new rules but keep the Electoral College.

[TAC]

What if the rural areas screw up thing for the big cities?? Do the non city dwellers have all the right answers for everything?? Why let the cities vote at all??

 

[rjs4470]

[ATTACH]59114[/ATTACH]

 

Unfortunately that's another misleading meme. That's not why we have the electoral college. As @Habib explained in another post, the Founding Fathers didn't trust the public to have the sole voice in electing a President.

 

So what if half the country lives in the gray areas. The other half lives in the blue areas. Why does the gray voice matter more than the blue??