Search Results for “terms”
There are 16 results.
- You are currently searching All Media
Video:
i know this at first sounds like a statement that is controversial for controversy’s sake, but just read on.
in america we have three branches of government, the judicial, the legislative, and the executive. the judicial branch is staffed by people chosen by the executive branch, and voted on by the legislative branch.
once confirmed these people are in for life.
the legislative branch is chosen by the people, and has set term limits on how long they can serve before having to be re-elected. but there is nothing stopping them from being elected over and over as most members in the legislative branch are. the house of congress in 2004, had 401 people run for re-election out of 435 sitting members. of those 401, all but five were re-elected. so incumbents have a 99% chance of staying in office, when running a re-election campaign.
in the u.s senate 25 of 26 won re-election. that gives them a nice 96% chance of staying where they are at. the reason they can stay is simply money, they have so many special pals, with so much special interest money. the incumbent spends on average four times the amount that the challenger spends. so basically, they are in for life, if they choose to be.
now on to executive branch, the president is elected by the people to serve for four years. once those four years are up, he almost certainly will run a re-election campaign. if he wins that election by the people, then he gets four more years. so at this point he must really be loved by the people to win a national election twice. but now after them four years are up, he is booted out. there is no running for re-election to serve the people that have kept him in office for the last eight years.
nope after that, we must get a fresh face and with it get new foreign and domestic policies, new budgets, new cuts. all the stuff we apparently did not want for eight years, but are now forced to accept. this idea that the three branches of government are set up as a form of checks and balances, is absurd. how can two out of the three be for life, while the other has no chance of serving for as long as the people choose?
i have been hearing talks from both sides of the aisle (mainly republican), to call for an amendment to the term limit that was set into the constitution with the 22nd amendment. this has been a debate for some time.
according to president clinton, former presidents who have already served two terms should be allowed to run for the office again, after some interim period has passed. he reasoned that the country might wish to trust leadership onto an already tried and proven candidate in times of great need. ronald reagan also publicly supported repealing the amendment. clinton, eisenhower, and reagan were all affected by the 22nd amendment, as they all served two terms and would have been strong candidates for reelection.
i suspect that we could do away with the whole “lame duck” syndrome that second term presidents are afflicted with, if they thought they had a chance to run again. thereby allowing continual progress with their (and the people’s supported), agenda. all young people should support this chance to grow up with the countries leader, allowing him to continually strive to do the will of the people.
