Former president Bill Clinton said Tuesday that presidents should be able to run for a third term so long as they take off some time after their second term.
“I’ve always thought that should be the rule,” he said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “”Not to affect me, but [for] anyone else going forward.”
Clinton made the remark in the context of a question posed by former Republican Congressman and show co-host Joe Scarborough, who said that many wished that he could run again.
Scarborough cited former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who led his country during World War II and then again in the 1950s, as an example.
The two-term limit for the presidency is mandated by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified after Franklin D. Roosevelt won four consecutive terms in the 1930s and 1940s.
Earlier in the morning, Clinton said that he does not spend time thinking about whether the country would be better off under the leadership of his wife, Hillary Clinton.
“I don’t think about it,” said Clinton, on NBC’s Today Show. “I deal with the world as it is. I think [Obama’s] done a better job than he’s getting credit for.”
Clinton was on the early morning shows Tuesday to promote his new book, “Back to Work.”
29 comments:
It really depends on the “type” of President that chooses to run for a third term, if the 22nd Amendment were to ever change. I don't think America's economic status could handle another four years of suffering. I do believe that if a President could run for a third term, let alone as many terms as they want, Clinton would’ve/would still continue to be in office today, with Hillary right by his side.
Allowing a president to have more than 2 total terms could be both beneficial and malevolent. Were a great president, such as FDR, to be elected several times, the US would be lead towards a better future. On the other hand, were a failed president to be elected, the country would spiral into collapse. Although, if a president proves him or herself to be bad, he or she is unlikely to be reelected in later general elections. The American people would not reelect a president who has been proven to be ineffective in office.Amending the 22nd amendment could result in having people who have proven themselves to be excellent leaders as our president for a longer time.
I can see some of the points Mr. Clinton is trying to make here, but in the long run, I think it's a bad idea.
Allowing a third term for presidents won't really help anything. Yes, it worked for Churchill and Roosevelt, but times were different then. The only way I see the U.S. needing a president longer than two terms is if we're in a really, really bad situation, and the president is good at keeping us safe. Otherwise, it will just lead to problems.
Think about it. Change the amendment to three terms, and then suddenly it's not three terms, but four, then five, and so on and so forth until we don't have a democracy anymore.
I personally don't think that the 22nd Amendment should be rewritten. The reason why is was written was because having the same person in power over a long period of time doesn't always work out. It is easy to get complacent and content with the status quo if you are in a high position for a long time. You can become narrow-minded and not look to any new ideas because since you've held the position so long why change anything. This also forces a fresh face and outlook every few years which is needed. Yes, it is difficult to adjust to new leadership every so often but the world continues to change and we just have to adapt. I don't deny that Winston Churchill was a great leader and if something isn't broken don't fix it, but we continuously need a new outlook for our new problems. Also this Amendment allows new candidates to run, and they will do their best knowing they only have 8 years to make their mark. If one could continually run and they continually win, why would anyone try to take their place and how hard would one work if they knew they could possibly have this job forever? I know there are always exceptions to the rules, but I think that this generalization is better than taking a chance on having a lazy leader.
Congress wrote the 22nd amendment to control the "reign" of presidents. I do not think the 22nd amendment should be revised because it provides a valuable service in a that prizes democracy. The American colonists fought for their independence in the 18th century to escape from a tyrannical king. They refused to be ruled by someone who did not have the people's best interests in mind. After becoming their own country they set up a democratic form of government where the elected ruler represented the will of the people.
No matter the good intentions a person might have, if they are allowed to hang on to power for a long time, they might be corrupted. The 22nd amendment is one of the ways the government tries to keep this from happening. Therefore, it is necessary to our society and the way our government works.
Obama has not done a good job or a bad job. He has done no job at all. All hes done is throw money at the economy... Anyway, the more than two terms per president has always seemed kind of unnecessary. If someones a good president, great, they should be elected as long as theyre doing their job. If someone is doing their job horribly they shouldnt be kept around.
I'm in favor of presidents serving a 3rd term, as long as time has passed. I think if presidents were to wait at least 4 years after their second term, they would bring valuable experience and hindsight to the presidency if re-elected. Everyone knows the 3rd time is the charm.
I have thought the same thing. It makes sense to limit the number of consecutive terms a president can hold, but what sense does it make to limit the number of total terms a president could serve? One person might be able to lead the country better than anyone else for a span of thirty years, but under our current system, even if they were doing a great job, they could only lead for eight years. Just because we don't allow people to run for more than two terms, doesn't always mean we diversify the political candidate options. Often when a candidate runs, they aim to do one of two things; keep the policies of the previous president going, or take the country in a different direction. If the candidate who wants to keep the same policies is elected, we have essentially the same president, except this one is just less experienced than the previous one. Why not allow presidents to take the office back after a brief period off? They will, to be elected a third time, have hopefully done a good job before and be able to duplicate that.
I believe it is not a good idea to extends the terms because then it would almost become a popularity contest. People might just vote for the president because he was elected before not on the issues that are troubling America. So we should not rewrite the 22nd Amendment.
I think that the 22nd Amendment should be rewritten so that a President could run for a third term , as long as the President running for the third term is helping America and not just running to run. For instance President Franklin D. Roosevelt was President for four terms because he helped America, that's why the American's kept voting for him. However, now if a President wanted to run for a third time the President would have to be really helping our American public and not just running to run.
I agree with Clinton on this one. I mean, if a president is doing a great job running this country, why shouldn't he be permitted to run for a third term after taking some time off. I believe that as long as they keep their goals established and accomplish them, and keep their ideas in the best interest for the country, there should be no hesitation to allow them to run again.
The 22nd amendment should be left as it is. It was created for a reason and has been functioning well so far- why change it? Views in the political climate change too much, too quickly to have one person and one set of ideas at the head of our government for any more than 8 years. Sure, FDR was successful in his four-term run, but that was a different time.
I don't think the 22nd amendment should be rewritten, it should be kept as it is. Eight years is long enough for one person to serve as president in the White House. Change is good for the U.S. and alternating presidents at least every eight years has seemed to work so why change it. Although Bill Clinton said this wouldn't affect him he probably proposed this idea because he'd like to run for a third term.
I believe that if an incumbent president wishes to serve a third term, then that person should be put to a confidence vote by the members of their party. If they are happy with that president's policies and feel that a new president is a step in the wrong direction, then they will be allowed to stand for re-election, but will still have to face a primary.
I think that a president should be able to run for a third term if need be. If said president was doing an amazing job running the country and the citizens were satisfied with him/her as president, then he/she should be able to continue his/her term in office. After the second term, if the new candidates for the office of president aren't deemed fit to be in that position, then the current president should be allowed to serve a third term because obviously, no one else is good for the task at hand. The American people need someone who has a strong hand, can be tough, and able to run the country best.
I actually see no problem with allowing this admendment to be rewritten in this way.Sure 2 terms has been set in stone but if one president has a good thing going and the people like him or her why get rid of him?
I think the amendment should be ratified. Clinton is right about the whole taking time off thing, that could really benefit the growth of the country.
The 22nd ammendment is an essential for the progression of American politics insofar as it allows for a changing of gaurd so to speak as it permits for differentiation of american policy.
It would be an interesting prospect for someone to think about rewriting the constitution. Although there is a little sense in presidents being allowed in office longer. If someone is doing good why not let them continue?
I don't think it would hurt to let former presidents who've completed two terms run for a third. Obviously the American people would realize rather he hurt or helped America as a whole and would decide accordingly. Although I do doubt that the 22nd amendment will be getting revamped any time soon, if at all.
I agree with Clinton's statement. If the candidate has already had two successful terms as president,then they shouldn't be prevented from running again. The people's choice as to who leads this country shouldn't be limited by whether a candidate has already held office twice. If anything,their experience in their previous terms better qualifies them for the position of President.
I believe that the 22nd ammendment should be in consideration for adjustments. In many peoples opinions there have been presidents that have done many positive things for the country and they believe they should have more opportunities to continue. I believe there shouldn't be any constrictions for more than two terms. If the country sees the potential in a president for more than two terms, it should be allowed.
I believe that being able to run for president for a third term could be beneficial. But like Clinton said they should take some time off after their second term. If a president does well while in office and his two terms are up the break could be a great stress reliever and gives the president time to look back at what he did and what he could have done better. It also allows the president to think about the people, what they want, and the economy.
I actually laughed out loud when I read the first sentence of this post. He may claim that it wouldn't be solely for his benefit but we can all guess that that isn't true. When Washington suggested that Presidents be allowed to serve for only one term he wasn't making a joke. It wasn't a give or take kind of deal. He meant it and I personally think he was one of the wisest Presidents we have ever had. I mean, he did say we should stay away from forming political parties, which we just ignored, and look where that got us. I'm sure that if we rewrote or flat out abolished the 22nd amendment there would be some former presidents that could improve our situation as it stands, but they would also make mistakes, just like Clinton did, which could get us into even deeper trouble whether it be with debt or foreign countries or even war. I think we need to leave it as it stands and follow Washington's advice. Better safe than sorry, right?
Personally I think that if Bill Clinton ran for a third time, I think that I would move to Canada. Some laws are put there for a reason. In his case, they made perfect sense. Also, if a law like that were to be bent imagine all of the other laws that would possibly and probably change.
The 22nd ammendment should be rewritten to as much as four terms for it leaves time for them to do a good job in office or just long enough for them to be in office good or not. Two terms just seems to little and especially if the president is shining out. Bu four terms is just enough.
The 22nd ammendment should be rewritten to as much as four terms for it leaves time for them to do a good job in office or just long enough for them to be in office good or not. Two terms just seems to little and especially if the president is shining out. Bu four terms is just enough.
I think that a president should not be allowed more then 2 terms. My reasoning is that people with too much power for too long can get out of hand and start to crave the power. I do believe that having a year or a couple of years off after their second term may help because a person is allowed to take a step back and take it all in from a different perspective however there may be those people who, as I said before, crave power. Over all I do not believe that this Amendment should not be changed.
I honestly think this ins't too bad of an idea. Hypothetically speaking of course, let's say this happened oh lets say, 30 years ago. We could have had someone like Ronald Reagan serving for three terms. Our country could of possibly been in a different social, political, and economical standpoint than what we're in today.
Post a Comment