22nd Amendment to be repealed?

[Nym90]

I'd strongly support this being repealed. I trust the people to make good decisions about who to vote for for President.

The entire case for term limits rests on the premise that the people are too stupid to vote "properly" and that we must force them to vote a different way than they'd like to. That violates every principle that this country rests on in my opinion.

I must say that I'm especially surprised that Libertarians would want to take away the freedom of people to vote for whomever they choose. Seems to be one of the most fundamental of all freedoms in my opinion. A classic case of "nanny state" government telling us what's good for us instead of trusting the people to make good decisions, I'd say.

[Nym90]

I would like to see term limits repealed at the state legislative level first.

I do not believe any single individual should be President for longer than eight years. One of the great things about the limit is that no matter how much one side dislikes a President, you know he won't be President after a certain point. At that point, there is a change. Republicans living in the 1930s and 40s when it seemed like Roosevelt would be President for their whole lives must have been in an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I would agree that generally speaking, it is not good for a President to serve more than 8 years. I would absolutely support this being used against any such President in the campaign by the opposing party.

But I think that's the bottom line; it should be an issue, yes, but ultimately the people are the only ones who can be trusted to weigh the pros and cons in each individual case of a President staying in office longer than 8 years. In the case of FDR, I think him staying longer than 8 years was a good thing, due to World War 2. The "no 3rd term" issue was used against him fairly effectively, and did help lead to him getting a much smaller percentage of the vote than he had in 1936.

[Nym90]

I would like to see term limits repealed at the state legislative level first.

I do not believe any single individual should be President for longer than eight years. One of the great things about the limit is that no matter how much one side dislikes a President, you know he won't be President after a certain point. At that point, there is a change. Republicans living in the 1930s and 40s when it seemed like Roosevelt would be President for their whole lives must have been in an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I would agree that generally speaking, it is not good for a President to serve more than 8 years. I would absolutely support this being used against any such President in the campaign by the opposing party.

But I think that's the bottom line; it should be an issue, yes, but ultimately the people are the only ones who can be trusted to weigh the pros and cons in each individual case of a President staying in office longer than 8 years. In the case of FDR, I think him staying longer than 8 years was a good thing, due to World War 2. The "no 3rd term" issue was used against him fairly effectively, and did help lead to him getting a much smaller percentage of the vote than he had in 1936.

Well, this is where I break with the populist position. Obviously, in our republic as Ernest points out there are checks and balances on the popular will, and the term limit is one of them. Its there to put a limit on the power of unchecked populism, repeatedly electing a candidate who happens to be personally favored by the masses, but who eventually grows into an idol with undefinite ability to bully the opposition. If people prefer a certain set of ideas to continue, they can continually re-elect the same party. But I don't believe in Kings or Big Brothers, not even popularly elected ones.

Oh I absolutely agree with checks and balances. I'd never support a total direct democracy.

And I absolutely agree that what's popular isn't always right. I've never said the will of the people should be trusted in everything, and I certainly believe there should be protections for the minority against the majority.

I strongly support checks and balances, and I think we have an adequate system in place through 3 branches of government with one of them being completely unelected and each of the other two only partially elected directly (due to the Electoral College and "first past the post" districts in the House and of course with the Senate giving equal power to each state regardless of size).

But voting seems to be one area in which who we decide to cast our ballots for should be pretty unrestricted. The freedom of who to vote for, along with freedom of speech and of religion, has to rank right up there as the most important freedoms and the ones that should have the least restrictions on.

I can certainly respect and understand your concerns, though, and rest assured I do share them. I just think at the end of the day the American people can be trusted in who they vote for (and if they can't, then we are basically screwed as a country anyway ).

[Nym90]

I'd strongly support this being repealed. I trust the people to make good decisions about who to vote for for President.

So you agree with the decision on GWB then?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keep in mind though that who you vote for affects other people if that candidate wins. Also keep in mind that democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority if it's allowed to become too democratic. We want people to be able to run their personal lives as they see fit so long as they aren't harming others, and that end will not likely be accomplished if things get too democratic. These ideas aren't putting limits on individuals and how they can run their private affairs, they are putting limits on government and how it works. We endorse the ideas because we believe that structuring government in this way will be better for personal freedom.

In other words we trust people to make decisions well enough with their own lives, but when it comes to making decisions for other people we aren't nearly so trusting.

Well I agree that what you say makes sense from a Libertarian perspective. I appreciate the insight.

And no, I don't agree with the decision to reelect Bush, but I do respect the right of the people to make that choice.

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not true if we have term limits.

You said voting for offices should be unrestricted. Should we abolish age requirements? Residency requirements? Possibly yes, but I wouldn't say I'm against restrictions on principle. I would say you look at the individual restriction and whether or not it serves a purpose that outweighs the costs.

I only support limits for executive offices, because this is the only level where I think there is a risk of cult of personality upsetting checks and balances. Frankly, there are many things I do distrust the people on: I distrust them to vote directly on how to interpret the Constitution, for example. That's why we have judges. I distrust them to vote on individual rights, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. I distrust them to vote directly on all on legislation, that's why we have representatives who do it. The whole idea of checks and balances comes down to these institutions that limit situations where pure majority rule is a problem. And I think executive-office term limits is one of those protections.

Term limits do not prevent the continuations of the same themes, the same ideas, the same policies, or the same directions. All it prevents is continuation of the same person, beyond 8 years. I think people have a tendency in some cases to build up a cult of personality; to create an idol whose personal aura and lure eventually becomes its own independent force. By this point we are basically electing royalty, a kind of royalty anointed by the majority. Executive term limits keep this tendency in ultimate check and focuses our democracy on the ideas, the policies, and the processes, and not any one individual. That is why I support them.

I do agree that if we are going to have term limits, it makes a lot more sense for the executive branch than it does for the legislative. And I certainly don't support direct democracy or getting rid of checks and balances, I just think that the pendulum has swung too far away from democracy with things like term limits adding to the list of things I and you both already mentioned, all of which I, like you, do support.

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not true if we have term limits.

You said voting for offices should be unrestricted. Should we abolish age requirements? Residency requirements? Possibly yes, but I wouldn't say I'm against restrictions on principle. I would say you look at the individual restriction and whether or not it serves a purpose that outweighs the costs.

I only support limits for executive offices, because this is the only level where I think there is a risk of cult of personality upsetting checks and balances. Frankly, there are many things I do distrust the people on: I distrust them to vote directly on how to interpret the Constitution, for example. That's why we have judges. I distrust them to vote on individual rights, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. I distrust them to vote directly on all on legislation, that's why we have representatives who do it. The whole idea of checks and balances comes down to these institutions that limit situations where pure majority rule is a problem. And I think executive-office term limits is one of those protections.

Term limits do not prevent the continuations of the same themes, the same ideas, the same policies, or the same directions. All it prevents is continuation of the same person, beyond 8 years. I think people have a tendency in some cases to build up a cult of personality; to create an idol whose personal aura and lure eventually becomes its own independent force. By this point we are basically electing royalty, a kind of royalty anointed by the majority. Executive term limits keep this tendency in ultimate check and focuses our democracy on the ideas, the policies, and the processes, and not any one individual. That is why I support them.

I do agree that if we are going to have term limits, it makes a lot more sense for the executive branch than it does for the legislative. And I certainly don't support direct democracy or getting rid of checks and balances, I just think that the pendulum has swung too far away from democracy with things like term limits adding to the list of things I and you both already mentioned, all of which I, like you, do support.

Well, I think it would be better to first go after rules which make little sense, such as the electoral college. The electoral college creates an effective elite out of about 1/3 of the electorate living in battleground states, while pushing the rest- urban and rural, republican and democratic alike, to the fringes of the political body.

True, and I do support getting rid of it as well and going with the popular vote (though my ideal would be instant run off voting or at least a run off between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority). I was referring to our shared opposition to allowing the people direct vote over constitutional interpretation, individual rights, or legislation.