rare political posting

[ceagle]

Okay, so in some cases we have term limits, and in others we don't.

Here's the thing... in your estimation, which is better...?
- Term Limits (which means we always have a Lame Duck who can do pretty much anything in their last term, sometimes a full half of their time in office), or
- No Term Limits (which allows some people to become career politicians, as long as they can keep getting elected)

Some say the best argument for no limits was our president Roosevelt, who held the country together through very difficult times... and others say he is also the best argument against unlimited terms (and is the main reason we have term limits today), because his popularity almost established an executive dynasty.

It's a pretty tough question, since both elements have good and bad... but which is better, less likely to be abused, and more likely to motivate a leader toward good?


[Poll #1222208]

Thanks! ^v^

Comments

[telbert.livejournal.com]

I think that term limits are important, for they prevent the formation of an executive dynasty. We're already seeing some terrible abuses of power in our government these days (warrantless wiretapping, sending *suspected* terrorists to secret torture camps without even being formally charged or tried in court). Abolishing term limits only threatens to steepen the slippery slope on which we already sit.

The "lame duck" risk that comes of Presidential term limits can mitigated by having a Congress and a citizenry that continues to take action to keep the President on task and in line. This is why I believe that citizens need to keep their constitutionally protected voice and USE it before it is taken away from us.