You're serious, aren't you? The whole point of the Constitution and a republic is to put limits on pure democracy.
Just because a majority of people wants something does not make it a good idea by any stretch of the imagination, including a President for Life, and if you honestly think some incumbent with no term limits couldn't pull that off, you overestimate the public.
The fact that Clinton got a second term, and probably would have pulled off a third, should set off warning bells. Liberals would probably say the same thing about Reagan.
I like the idea of hanging as many restrictions on government as humanly possible. If I could, I would pass a constitutional amendment requiring all legislators to stand on one foot during sessions, and make air-conditioning illegal in Washington DC. There is a school of thought that says that the era of big government really started when air conditioning hit the District of Columbia big time.
Current Events » in reply to Re: Get off it, Tom . . .
Why do I not trust the voters?
The whole thread (18 posts)
- Bottom line question for the dems: Why do you support the changing of election laws when it is convenient for democrats? § (n/t)
- Re: Bottom line question for the repubs: When do you support the changing of the Constitution's Presidential term limit amendment?
- Legislation, not court decisions.
- Re: link correction
- Uh...because it works? (n/t) (n/t)
- Re: Bottom line question for the repubs: When do you support the changing of the Constitution's Presidential term limit amendment?
