Should the 22nd amendment be repealed?

[GGover]

I will vote yes, if the voters don't want a president to serve for more than two terms, the president will simply be defeated.

[Mr. Smith]

If this were asked before 2000, the answer would be yes. But not anymore.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yes. We should have had a third term of Obama, not this Hillary or Trump bullsh**t

[Lechasseur]

If this were asked before 2000, the answer would be yes. But not anymore.

[dw93]

I see no need for it. The job ages a person so much that most would step down after two terms from just being so worn out. Going through the post war Presidents that served two full terms:

Ike in 1960: Would've declined due to poor health. If he does, he wins by a narrow margin and most likely dies sometime in a third term. If he survives it, he declines to run in '64 for sure.

Reagan in 1988: While I think he would've thought about it and even considered it, I think in the end he'd decline to seek another term due to age, health, and mainly due to Nancy most likely not wanting him to. If for what ever reason he does run however, he wins by a smaller margin than Bush 41 did and ends up resigning midway through his third term.

Clinton in 2000: Unless Hillary was dead set on running for the Senate from New York that year, Bill almost certainly runs for a third term and beats George Dubya or McCain, although he doesn't win with ease like he did in '92 and '96. A Third Term most likely takes it's toll on Bill (it might even kill him considering he had heart surgery in 2004 in real life) and a Republican is either elected in 2004 or Gore (if he does another term as VP) wins through the skin of his teeth. Hillary would run for office in 2004 if Bill goes for a third term in 2000.

Bush in 2008: He seemed frustrated, worn out, and eager to go back to Texas by the end of 2006. I highly doubt he'd run again and if he did, well that's one way the Democrats can win 400+ electoral votes in the general election, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone seriously primary challenged Dubya in this scenario either.

Obama in 2016: On the one hand,  he too seemed frustrated and worn out by midway through his second term, so that and Michelle  saying no might keep him from running. On the other hand, if he felt his legacy was truly in danger of being completely overturned and felt that Hillary and Biden were too vulnerable in their own right to win, I think so long as Michelle allows it, he runs again. He lacks the baggage of Hillary and is just overall more likeable than she is and while things were far from perfect, the country was still better off overall than it was when he took office, so I think he could win. He might see Sanders run a much weaker primary challenge against him, but in the end I think he narrowly wins if Rubio, Bush, or Cruz are nominated and wins by a 2012 like margin if Trump is still nominated. Kasich is the only one of the 16 or 17 candidates that ran that for the 2016 nomination I can see beating Obama for a third term and even that's stretching it considering how dull (even if sincere) Kasich is.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Yes, the government has no right to tell people who they can and cannot vote for, regardless of how long they have been in office.

[Sumner 1868]

I see no need for it. The job ages a person so much that most would step down after two terms from just being so worn out. Going through the post war Presidents that served two full terms:

Ike in 1960: Would've declined due to poor health. If he does, he wins by a narrow margin and most likely dies sometime in a third term. If he survives it, he declines to run in '64 for sure.

Reagan in 1988: While I think he would've thought about it and even considered it, I think in the end he'd decline to seek another term due to age, health, and mainly due to Nancy most likely not wanting him to. If for what ever reason he does run however, he wins by a smaller margin than Bush 41 did and ends up resigning midway through his third term.

Clinton in 2000: Unless Hillary was dead set on running for the Senate from New York that year, Bill almost certainly runs for a third term and beats George Dubya or McCain, although he doesn't win with ease like he did in '92 and '96. A Third Term most likely takes it's toll on Bill (it might even kill him considering he had heart surgery in 2004 in real life) and a Republican is either elected in 2004 or Gore (if he does another term as VP) wins through the skin of his teeth. Hillary would run for office in 2004 if Bill goes for a third term in 2000.

Bush in 2008: He seemed frustrated, worn out, and eager to go back to Texas by the end of 2006. I highly doubt he'd run again and if he did, well that's one way the Democrats can win 400+ electoral votes in the general election, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone seriously primary challenged Dubya in this scenario either.

Obama in 2016: On the one hand,  he too seemed frustrated and worn out by midway through his second term, so that and Michelle  saying no might keep him from running. On the other hand, if he felt his legacy was truly in danger of being completely overturned and felt that Hillary and Biden were too vulnerable in their own right to win, I think so long as Michelle allows it, he runs again. He lacks the baggage of Hillary and is just overall more likeable than she is and while things were far from perfect, the country was still better off overall than it was when he took office, so I think he could win. He might see Sanders run a much weaker primary challenge against him, but in the end I think he narrowly wins if Rubio, Bush, or Cruz are nominated and wins by a 2012 like margin if Trump is still nominated. Kasich is the only one of the 16 or 17 candidates that ran that for the 2016 nomination I can see beating Obama for a third term and even that's stretching it considering how dull (even if sincere) Kasich is.

Actually, hypothetical polling from 1987-1988 and 1999-2000 made it pretty clear neither Reagan or Clinton would have gotten third terms despite decent approval ratings because voters wanted change (which was a key factor in 1960 as well). Obama, meanwhile, was unpopular in his second term and only improved his image because of the 2016 election-circus.

[SATW]

no   

[America Needs R'hllor]

no   

This, though I do respect FDR more for his ability to serve so long. 2 terms are enough and help protect American democracy.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Should be reformed to a single six year term.

[RINO Tom]

No (Washington fan)

[Santander]

Yes and replace it with a constitutional amendment banning all term limits, and mandatory retirement for Presidents at 80.

[dw93]

I see no need for it. The job ages a person so much that most would step down after two terms from just being so worn out. Going through the post war Presidents that served two full terms:

Ike in 1960: Would've declined due to poor health. If he does, he wins by a narrow margin and most likely dies sometime in a third term. If he survives it, he declines to run in '64 for sure.

Reagan in 1988: While I think he would've thought about it and even considered it, I think in the end he'd decline to seek another term due to age, health, and mainly due to Nancy most likely not wanting him to. If for what ever reason he does run however, he wins by a smaller margin than Bush 41 did and ends up resigning midway through his third term.

Clinton in 2000: Unless Hillary was dead set on running for the Senate from New York that year, Bill almost certainly runs for a third term and beats George Dubya or McCain, although he doesn't win with ease like he did in '92 and '96. A Third Term most likely takes it's toll on Bill (it might even kill him considering he had heart surgery in 2004 in real life) and a Republican is either elected in 2004 or Gore (if he does another term as VP) wins through the skin of his teeth. Hillary would run for office in 2004 if Bill goes for a third term in 2000.

Bush in 2008: He seemed frustrated, worn out, and eager to go back to Texas by the end of 2006. I highly doubt he'd run again and if he did, well that's one way the Democrats can win 400+ electoral votes in the general election, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone seriously primary challenged Dubya in this scenario either.

Obama in 2016: On the one hand,  he too seemed frustrated and worn out by midway through his second term, so that and Michelle  saying no might keep him from running. On the other hand, if he felt his legacy was truly in danger of being completely overturned and felt that Hillary and Biden were too vulnerable in their own right to win, I think so long as Michelle allows it, he runs again. He lacks the baggage of Hillary and is just overall more likeable than she is and while things were far from perfect, the country was still better off overall than it was when he took office, so I think he could win. He might see Sanders run a much weaker primary challenge against him, but in the end I think he narrowly wins if Rubio, Bush, or Cruz are nominated and wins by a 2012 like margin if Trump is still nominated. Kasich is the only one of the 16 or 17 candidates that ran that for the 2016 nomination I can see beating Obama for a third term and even that's stretching it considering how dull (even if sincere) Kasich is.

Actually, hypothetical polling from 1987-1988 and 1999-2000 made it pretty clear neither Reagan or Clinton would have gotten third terms despite decent approval ratings because voters wanted change (which was a key factor in 1960 as well). Obama, meanwhile, was unpopular in his second term and only improved his image because of the 2016 election-circus.

This past election showed how flawed polling can be and going back to 1988 and 2000, Polling showed Dukakis beating Bush by 17 points in the Summer of 1988 after the Democratic convention and Bush won in a landslide. In 2000, Bush 43 was leading Gore by similar margins prior to the conventions and while Bush still won, it was by 537 votes and Gore won the popular vote. I still think Reagan and Clinton would've won in the end, both were more charismatic and politically talented than their hand picked successors, who either won or came extremely close.

[Lechasseur]

Should be reformed to a single six year term.

Absolutely, I've been thinking the same thing for years

[President Johnson]

Yes, but modify instead of full repeal: It should only apply to consecutive terms, not absolute. And the presidential term should be changed to five years.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Should be reformed to a single six year term.

Absolutely, I've been thinking the same thing for years

I would prefer this too. One of the few improvements the CSA added to their constitution, along with limits on logrolling, granting pro forma observer seats in congress for cabinet heads, preemptively allowing  interstate compacts for river maintenance and requiring the post office to be self funded.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yes, but modify instead of full repeal: It should only apply to consecutive terms, not absolute. And the presidential term should be changed to five years.

Seriously, did you guys learn nothing from Russia? Even from Israel, where we have the same, corrupt, power-hungry Prime Minister for years? Two 4 year terms are the best thing about your system and the major reason your democracy is so strong, don't ruin it.

[President Johnson]

Yes, but modify instead of full repeal: It should only apply to consecutive terms, not absolute. And the presidential term should be changed to five years.

Seriously, did you guys learn nothing from Russia? Even from Israel, where we have the same, corrupt, power-hungry Prime Minister for years? Two 4 year terms are the best thing about your system and the major reason your democracy is so strong, don't ruin it.

America is not Russia. I would love Barack Obama to come back in 2020. And I would especially enjoy the God Emperor to lose against the man he bullyed for many years in the most disgraceful way. Several states also have consescutive term-limits for governors and just works fine.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yes, but modify instead of full repeal: It should only apply to consecutive terms, not absolute. And the presidential term should be changed to five years.

Seriously, did you guys learn nothing from Russia? Even from Israel, where we have the same, corrupt, power-hungry Prime Minister for years? Two 4 year terms are the best thing about your system and the major reason your democracy is so strong, don't ruin it.

America is not Russia. I would love Barack Obama to come back in 2020. And I would especially enjoy the God Emperor to lose against the man he bullyed for many years in the most disgraceful way. Several states also have consescutive term-limits for governors and just works fine.

America is not Russia, but do you think the possibility of a terrible, corrupt President gaining popularity thanks to a war victory or something of the sort doesn't exist? There are many candidates other than Barack Obama- removing this important safeguard of your democracy just for him is not right.

[President Johnson]

Yes, but modify instead of full repeal: It should only apply to consecutive terms, not absolute. And the presidential term should be changed to five years.

Seriously, did you guys learn nothing from Russia? Even from Israel, where we have the same, corrupt, power-hungry Prime Minister for years? Two 4 year terms are the best thing about your system and the major reason your democracy is so strong, don't ruin it.

America is not Russia. I would love Barack Obama to come back in 2020. And I would especially enjoy the God Emperor to lose against the man he bullyed for many years in the most disgraceful way. Several states also have consecutive term-limits for governors and just works fine.

America is not Russia, but do you think the possibility of a terrible, corrupt President gaining popularity thanks to a war victory or something of the sort doesn't exist? There are many candidates other than Barack Obama- removing this important safeguard of your democracy just for him is not right.

I don't see this treat. There is always a chance that a nutjob gets elected, with or without term-limits. Even the current 22nd amendment leaves the door open that a one-term president returns to power. A one-term president is even more likely to be failed one rather than somebody who won two elections. I think the door to regain the office should not be completely closed once someone is out of office. I acknowledge the need for regular changes, but on the other hand, the people should be free to vote for anybody they want; even if we don't like the person.

[vanguard96]

No and FDR should not have served 4 terms either

[The Free North]

Absolutely not. It would be inconsistent with our style of government and it was disappointing that Washington's precedent had to actually be turned into law in the first place.

I would also point out that for everyone wishing their favorite president got to serve for another term, think of how happy you are that the current one is constitutionally limited to just 2.