Just moving this to the top of page one.

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.





I understand the limiting, Tom, but on the growing global scale, 2 terms may not be enough. What about increasing 1 term to 6 years instead of 4?

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.

My firm disagreement is toward your assumption that Clinton could have taken the public a third time. He was barred from contact with Gore during the final months of the presidential campaign, simply because he was so disliked by that same voting public.

But, who knows. With the knowledge that he possibly could run for a third, fourth, fifth term, he might have tried a little harder, and been a better president...

We'll never know, because the frightened public would doubtless prefer your controlling democracy over my demanding democracy.

And as for Reagan, he is now working through his fourth term through his VP’s son. It’s dynastic.

I like the idea of hanging as many restrictions on government as humanly possible.

What you call restrictions, I call party control.

For those wondering, my thread for this thought begins here.

Well, the choice is still theirs*,
Dan

* the government