Should US Presidents be limited to one term?

In Mexico, Presidents can only serve for one term, but their term lasts for six years.

Does anyone think the US should amend the Constitution to permit a person to serve as President for only ONE term, instead of two?

If your answer is yes, please also answer the following...

1. How long should the Presidential term be?

2. Should a former President be allowed to run again for the Presidency after taking a "five year break"?

Right now, a former President who has been elected President twice (like Bill Clinton) cannot do this, but some states allow their Governors and State Legislators to run again after taking at least a one term "break."

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Calvin
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Best answer

    I am happy with the current law regarding this.

    Mexico is certainly not a model for the United States (and shouldn't be for any nation at all for that matter).

    Source(s): Limiting the terms of Senators and Congressmen would be a good idea however.
  • 1 decade ago

    The Constitution will not be amended in terms of presidential terms. It will stick for the lifetime of the Constitution. So don't waste your time on the notion that the One Term will ever take effect.

    As for State Governors this all depends on each state and their legistlators. Virginia is the ONLY state so far that only allows the governor to run for one term. there are several states that have the break in between terms. but that is totally decided by legistlators and the people of the state if the legistlators choose to put it on the ballot for a vote.

  • 4 years ago

    Officially, Bush cannot run for another term. As for being VP, I've heard some say it could be done. With someone like Reagan were he not ill at the end of his second term, or Bill Clinton the support might have been there. For George Bush, he enjoys little support outside of the hardliners in the GOP, so he'd have no chance.

  • 1 decade ago

    I wholeheartedly agree. If only one term was allowed, then we would weed out a lot of the "good old boy" Republicans that we know and love, who spend more time pandering to centrists and liberals than to their base.

    1. 6 years. People get tired of a president after a while, no matter who he is, unless he is the best, like Reagan.

    2. No, I don't believe that would be a good idea necessarily.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    One term 4 years.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don't believe that presidents should be held to just one term. In fact, I believe that the two term limit for a president can be harmful to a country. Often times, if the President of the United States is re-elected, his (her) second term makes their actions inconsequential. When they don't have to worry about running for re-election, they don't have to worry about what the people think about them, and they don't have to answer to the people who were responsible for making them their leader and voice of reason. Is there really any wonder that Nixon resigned in his second term, Clinton was impeached in his second term, and Bush (Now) is pusing the limits of constitutionality beyond that of any of his predecessors in his second term? Let them run as often as they want and hold them accountable for all of their actions in the eyes of the American Public.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I wouldn't use Mexico as an example seeing the problems they have. I think two terms is sufficient.

  • x2000
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I think it's fine the way it is. What really needs to be done is to limit the terms of Senators and Representatives.

  • 1 decade ago

    no,

    we just need to rid the nation of losers like GW throught the slow democratic process

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, especially if it is any part of the Bush family!

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.