Replies

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.

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

You were the one who used the term "law," friend. Yes, indeed, it IS the "law of the land" ... it IS a constitutional Amendment. So was Prohibition, and it was overturned. Many Dems were screaming about trying to overturn the 2-terms/10-year Amendment in order to push Clinton in 2000 ... remember? I'm convinced that the only reason they didn't actually try was that Clinton was Impeached.

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

I like to dream ... but, in fact, I'm not actually doing that in this case. I was just offering up a SUGGESTION, not thinking it would ever actually come to pass.

"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 know that. You know that. And we both also know that it wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been "by necessity" (i.e., if FDR hadn't died). I suppose that, if the situation were BAD enough that "changing horses" would be dangerous, perhaps Cheney could be convinced to run for election himself. Which brings up an interesting question: IF Bush were to die in office would Cheney run for election in his own right in 08? Or, would he just serve out Bush's term and step down?

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

If you're correct, then why not let the electorate determine that in each election rather than barring the option altogether.

Oh ... heck ... I'm just arguing to hear myself argue. Perhaps I need to get a cup of coffee?