I believe that this amendment of the United State Constitution is paramount in our political process. The United States of America became the country that it is today mainly because of our former citizens' desire to end Great Britain's monarchical rule. In keeping a human in power for a long duration of time, that being would inevitably garner feelings of superiority and privilege - possibly causing that person to become tyrannical in rule. America is a country that stresses the importance of hope and grit. We stress the importance of the idea that, no matter who you are or where you came from, if you work hard and truly put in your best effort, you can be as successful as you want to be. If we do not limit the terms of the presidency, we are essentially negating this American dream. If we allot power to one person for a long period of time, then we are taking away others' opportunities to shoot for that dream.
What about an amendment to ensure that not only can a president serve at most two terms BUT that no member of his or her immediate family can be elected president for a period of 20 years? That is, no Bush or Clinton dynasty????
I think that preventing immediate family from running would inhibit the second family member's right to run for office, assuming that the candidate has the qualifications stated in the constitution.
I agree that the 22nd amendment was not necessary. As exemplified in the blog, a stable leader such as FDR was not harmful to America. If the general public decides that the president is unfit for his/her position then he/she will be voted out of office. Similarly, if the president is performing his/her duty righteously and fulfilling the desires of most Americans then the U.S. citizens will continue to vote for him/her. I understand the fear of having a monarchy that forms if this amendment is repealed, however I think that if the re-running president gains enough support from the people, say ¾ of the country, then he/she can possibly have a 3rd term.
I believe that this amendment of the United State Constitution is paramount in our political process. The United States of America became the country that it is today mainly because of our former citizens' desire to end Great Britain's monarchical rule. In keeping a human in power for a long duration of time, that being would inevitably garner feelings of superiority and privilege - possibly causing that person to become tyrannical in rule. America is a country that stresses the importance of hope and grit. We stress the importance of the idea that, no matter who you are or where you came from, if you work hard and truly put in your best effort, you can be as successful as you want to be. If we do not limit the terms of the presidency, we are essentially negating this American dream. If we allot power to one person for a long period of time, then we are taking away others' opportunities to shoot for that dream.
ReplyDeleteWhat about an amendment to ensure that not only can a president serve at most two terms BUT that no member of his or her immediate family can be elected president for a period of 20 years? That is, no Bush or Clinton dynasty????
ReplyDeleteI think that preventing immediate family from running would inhibit the second family member's right to run for office, assuming that the candidate has the qualifications stated in the constitution.
DeleteI agree that the 22nd amendment was not necessary. As exemplified in the blog, a stable leader such as FDR was not harmful to America. If the general public decides that the president is unfit for his/her position then he/she will be voted out of office. Similarly, if the president is performing his/her duty righteously and fulfilling the desires of most Americans then the U.S. citizens will continue to vote for him/her. I understand the fear of having a monarchy that forms if this amendment is repealed, however I think that if the re-running president gains enough support from the people, say ¾ of the country, then he/she can possibly have a 3rd term.
ReplyDelete