[TexasGreg]

Two terms are the law of the land, and, I'd wager, 80% of the voting public believe they're a good idea. As do I, no matter who might want a third term.

1. Yes, it's the law of the land. So is the right to abortion. That doesn't make it right.

2. There's a fair-to-even chance that about 40-45% of the voting public would have voted Clinton to have a third term.

3. "Wanting" a third term is not the issue. The question I'm considering is the possibility that we might NEED a President to have a third term. The logic behind "not changing horses in the middle of a race," which governs the general mood behind re-electing a President in the middle of a war, comes to mind as a valid reason why the law against a third term (which would put a President over 9 years and 364 days) might not be as great a thing as most would like to think. If the Islamofacists are hitting us hard and fast, with nukes even, come 2007, do you really want to risk the nation to Hillarybeast? If not, then WHO will take up the mantle of the Presidency after Bush steps down??

[sinkspur]

The logic behind "not changing horses in the middle of a race," which governs the general mood behind re-electing a President in the middle of a war, comes to mind as a valid reason why the law against a third term (which would put a President over 9 years and 364 days) might not be as great a thing as most would like to think.

It's not a law; it's a constitutional amendment, which means that it would take another constitutional amendment to overturn it.

You're dreaming if you think 38 states would vote to allow unlimited terms for a president.

"Changing horses in the middle of a war" is no big deal; Harry Truman didn't miss a beat when he succeeded Roosevelt, though that was by necessity.

I don't want it, and I suspect most other Americans feel the same way. Two terms are enough.