Should the U.S. Constitution be changed to allow Presidents to hold office for..

To be honest Desitiny007 I'm sure whether I favor the idea of changing the contitution or not, which is why I started this discussion. But the constitution is, and should be a living, breatheing, maleable document. I totally see your point about the foreign born presidents, that they may be beholden to their form countries. The argument I would present though is that President is watched pretty closely during his time in office. Granted that person may be able to surround themselves with people of like mind, but that can happen in any administration. I the think the best argument I've heard for allowing foreign born Presidents, is the one that asks the question: don't we want the very best person in that office? Shouldn't we make allowence to let the smartest, best qualified people lead us regardless of their originial nationality? My father was born in Canada, he moved to the U.S. when he was a small child, became a citizen and served in the military. All that being said, he could never run for President, which seems a little unfair. I would put forth the idea that perhaps we should these cases should be looked at on a case by case basis. This post is not intended to start a debate about Clinton or his politics. It is however only fair that I point out that 9/11 did not happend on Clintons watch, and that Clinton did a lot of good things for the country, including balancing the budget. President Clinton is and was a very well respected President both at home and abroad, regardless or your, or my personal feelings whatever they may be. People can and will fingerpoint and you have every right to express your opinion but I ask that we remain on topic here. Thanks for shareing your views.

Read your own original post again. You mentioned Clinton in it, along with the rest. I did stay on topic. You say Clinton balanced the budget...sure he did, at the expense of necessary government services and he sent this country into a recession to do it. No Clinton was not in office during 9-11. The foreign policy that he followed while he was in office is what caused the attacks on 9-11. It was during this time that bin Ladin declared that he was going after not only America but also tax paying Americans.

Please stop Clinton bashing Destiny007, this isn't about Clinton as a president. It's about people thinking that he and other Presidents should be allowed to run for more than 2 terms. I'm positive there are many people out there that would like to see Bush run for a 3rd or more term as well, but it is impossible because of the constitution. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but I mean this topic to be about the constitution, not the presidents or their politics.

A twelve year max would'nt be so bad. That's basically 2 more years than the current 10 year rule. It really wouldn't be bad at all if we were able to put our leader to "the question" as they do in the UK and other countries; that's where they are forced to answer questions about what they have done and why they have done it. If we had a "no confidence" vote it would be even better so we could remove the stupid and inept. I'm still on the fence with a foriegn born president. There are people who were born elsewhere who grew up here who really are American and hold no alligence to another country. Or someone like the Governator who has become a citizen and has done much good for the country, and been a model citizen. Don't we want the very best and brightest person leading us regardless of what soil they were born on? Take the reverse scenario. Someone who was born here and is a U.S. citizen, but grew up overseas. They are more beholden to another country and culture yet they could run for President if they so desired.

I really don't like the idea of a "binding" no-confidence vote. It sounds good on the surface, but when you look at how its used, its for one political party's gain or to embarrass another. Just because a president makes an unpopular decision (it might be the right one), someone can call for a no-confidence vote. I like our system where the process is determined by impeachment. There's more at risk then just removal. Now, for someone living outside the country who is an American citizen and then tries to be President...well, that person is at a disadvantage. If they could persuade the electorate that they are worthy and loyal, then that person has the right to take that position. Again, there are checks and balances. The reason I say 12 years, is that term would allow for a better match in foreign policy. To me, our leaders switch out mid stream when it comes to important projects. In a business setting, this wouldn't be done unless the leader was corrupt and forced to resign. Still, I think 3 terms should be the exception and not the rule...FDR stayed on because there was a need to keep the same CINC throughout the war.

There's been plenty of calls for impeachment by individuals: Murtha, Pelosi (before her current role), and Kennedy are the most prominent. The notable exception has been Hillery. Because they never really had the votes, the point was mute. Getting back to FDR, I've talked to some Republicans who didn't want to vote for someone else during that time. Not because he was a good President, but because they saw a need to win the war. The one thing he did right, was to share/make the US feel there was a war. Thats something that this society hasn't felt, unless they personally knew someone go to war. But thats a different topic...

I agree that the voters should be able to decide for themsleves but I also understand the term limits when you considier how easy it is to commit vote fraud, especially in this age of electronic voting where hard copy "proof" of the votes do not exist. The Austrians are just waiting to make their move.. hehe Thanks for posting tanya8. Minnie Mouse is HOT! filmbuff

I'm postive that Bill Clinton couldn't serve another term. A person can only serve as president for 10 years total. He's already served 8 years, and since you hold the office for 4 years it is an impossiblility. The idea of a foriegn born president becoming speaker of the house and having both the president and vice president die in hopes of becoming President is a far fetched idea and not a legitimate way for a non-natural born citizen to become President. They probably would be ineligible anyways because they were not born here. I hadn't heard about George Romney, but if one or both of his parents U.S. citizens, he it too by default provided someone filed the paperwork at sometime. Thanks for commenting gifana.

Hello Filmbuff, I'll share the condensed version of the answer to your very valid question. If you'd like more details, I would suggest that you give a call to your local university and ask to speak with a Sociology professor. He or she should be able to provide you with supportive evidence of what I share here now, which is what I learned in my college Sociology class. Bear in mind that, as is the case with all research, these findings are based on generalities. So, please don't shoot the messenger. Many who immigrate with their families at very young ages to the U.S. grow up with the ethno-cultural influences of their immigrant parents. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think it's imperative to remember from whence we came. However, the President is supposed to be the leader of all "The People", giving preference to no particular culture or ethnicity. Sociolical findings suggest that the imprint of our immigrant roots doesn't fully fade away until the third generation. The first generation may still have strong ties to their homeland, and generally doesn't have a proficient command of the language or laws of our nation. The second generation generally doesn't have strong ties to the homeland, but still have strong ties to their parents ... who have strong ties to the homeland. Second generation transplants tend to be more lenient toward immigrant issues, and immigrants in general, and will often be more supportive of dualities in allegiance. For example: dual languages, dual cultural separation, as often occurs in immigrant communities where new transplants congregate together geographically, and make a strong effort to nuture the homeland cultural traditions. By the third generation, most if not all are fully assimilated into our culture. And, are perceived to be free of any biases that their parents and grandparents may hold. So, in essence, allowing second generation presidencies is a compromise to the strict standard of prohibiting first generation transplants. It may not be fair, but ultimately I believe it is wise.

Believe it or not, I agree with you one the two term issue ladyluna, but I've yet to be swayed on the issue of allowing a foreign born person run for President. There are quite a few immigrants who come here early in life, long before they can have alliegence to any government. It seems a little unfair that not of these people could be President considering they've had little to no contact with the country they were born in. What do you think?

Thank your for the very detailed, logical and informative reply to my question ladyluna. What you are saying does make a lot of sense. I never did take sociology in college and now I'm kind've wishing that I had. You do make a very valid point about the 3 generational gap. Statistics show that usually by the third generation non-english speaking families will have become primarily english speaking families. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.

This isn't about why they would or wouldn't want a specific president to hold more than 2 terms in office, but rather if they should be allowed to or not.

Very well stated speakeasy, I couldn't agree with you more. I especially like the point you brought up about U.S. citizens who were born here but grew up abroad, or spent a good portion of their life there. I think we should be more worried about those people leading us then someone who moved here as a small child. Thanks so much for posting.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Destiny, Angelwhispers: Isn't it better to seek out the best man for the job, the brightest and most qualified to lead us regardless of where their original place of birth was? You do make a very good point about being saddled with a bad president or administration for 12 years or more. The longer someone has power, the harder it is for them to give it up. FDR did a pretty good job though during World War II. To be honest I'm not sure I would be in favor of it either.

I totally agree with you about people who are born outside of the U.S. should be allowed to be president. We question their loyalty, but what of the folks who were born in the U.S. and grew up overseas? They are elligible to run for President and they would be more likely to be beholden to another country since that is where they grew up. I like your idea of extending the term of office from 4 to 6 years. That would give the President a better chance of being more effective and getting new policies in place and running smoothly before a changing of the guard. Thanks so much for posting.