In the Weimar Republic, prior to the "reign" of Hitler, the German President was elected by the people for a seven year term. Do you believe there is an advantage to a longer presidential term in office? Explain your response, and also discuss whether you would vote to pass an amendment increasing our current four year presidential term in office to seven years, with a limit of serving two terms? Would this be better or worse for our country?
66 comments:
I feel that four years is amazing. With seven years you can give up the risk of hating the president. Four years is just enough to settle down and get to work, and if the people really love you, you can get elected as president again. Four years is an amount of time to figure out what your doing and getting to it. Thats why i feel the four year terms and two term limit is terrific.
It depends on how effective and how "good" the president is. If a given president is in office for 7 years, but doesn't seem to do much for our country, therefore leading the country into a major economic disaster, It may leave people thinking that a shorter term is better. However, If a president is very effective and "good", It may be better for him to stay in office longer as he will do more for the people of this country. Therefore, it depends on the president.
I think this would be a bit of a gamble, because if it is a good president then the country can benefit greatly but if it is a bad president then the country can suffer greatly. With almost 2x the maximum term of a president, the risk increases, but so does the reward. However, with our system, a president stays in office for 4 years, he can show if he should get reelected without being able to permanently damage the US. Change is also good because the US will not only ever need one electoral party, we will need both at different times.
There is an advantage in having a 7 year term because you can have all the power you want for almost 2 U.S. terms. If the U.S. had a seven year term with a limit of 2 terms would be useless because we made the terms 4 years so the U.S. citizens could frequently change the president if they wanted to. Also it would be a waste because 7 years is almost 2 terms, so if you had 2 seven year terms it is almost double the max limit now. It would be worse for our country to have this. That is why the U.S. has 2 4 year terms not 7.
I feel that a 4 year term is the right decision. I do not believe that there is an advantage for a president having a longer term. I think if you automatically get 7 years to be a president or leader, than you take the first couple of years lightly and don't work as hard, so in that case I would not vote to pass an amendment to increase the term for a president. If a president had a chance to be the president for 14 years in office, it would be very bad for our country. I think this because it is good to always change presidents every so often, because it changes things around, also if a president is not a good president, it would not be the right thing to give him a chance on serving 14 years in office
I think that it really depends on the president and what party they are from. I think 4 years is good but if the president is going poorly the congress can vote him out of office and the vice president takes over the job and the president becomes the vice president. This would both help the american people stay close and have a president who is doing the right think and it give the Vice President to does something important rather than being the vice president.
I believe that a 4 year term is the right decision. I do not believe that there is an advantage for a president having a longer term. If the United States has a bad president, it will help to have a shorter term as president in the United States of America. Since it is nearly impossible to impeach the president, the shorter time, the better. If America truly loves this president, he will be re-elected into the second term and they will be in office for eight years. With all major decisions over many years, people need new faces and new ideas to help the country thrive. Mostly, the US changes presidents every four years which really help America thrive with different approaches to different ideas. If a president were to be elected for a second term, they would be in office for fourteen years which then can get old after a while with the same approach to every decision. There is also a risk of having longer terms because the president could potentially make questionable decisions that can really affect America for the worse. Another reason of why extending the times of terms, is that people could have different political views. If a republican is re elected to a second term, the democratic party might not be happy and it could create craziness within the democratic party.
I think a seven year term would be great. I think the problem now is that if a president gets elected, their entire first term is spent campaigning instead of trying to move our country in the right direction. However, if this was the case, there should only be a one term policy. I also think that a problem America faces now is that if a president doesn't get reelected their policies would be cut down, and the country would be exactly where it started. For example, if Romney had won the 2012 election, he would have taken down everything Obama tried to do. On the other hand, if a president is not popular, a seven year term is very long. However, I feel the pros out weight the cons, so if the U.S. had this policy, it would be for the better.
In my opinion, a 4 year term is enough for the president to lead our country. After 4 years, the people of America get sick and tired of the same decisions. What they want sometimes is change. But, if the president running the government during this "7 year term" is great and makes good, wise, and of course, useful decisions for our country, by all means, a "7 year term" would be superb. But, it always depends on the people and who they trust, and want to follow. But, another con would possibly be the president having to much power and taking it all. He may not distribute it evenly and he will become a dictator. This may also lead to a corruption in our political system and our government.
I think that our current position with 4 years and 2 terms is fine. 7 years is too long. Imagine that we did have 7 year terms and we elected a bad president. Even if they were a good president it could lead to a situation like FDR again excluding after him the 2 term limit was made. I think we are fine.
I think that our current policy of 4 years 2 terms in perfect. Because if the president already knew he was going to serve 7 years that he can relax and not work very hard but if he knew that in 4 years he needed to get at least %50 of the electoral votes than that would create a sense of urgency and he would work harder and more efficient. Also if the president was a bad president who lead our country into unnecessary struggles that the people should have the option to kick him out of office after only 4 years instead of seven. To conclude i think that our current policy works and should remain the same.
I believe that having a seven year term is an advantage but also can have a disadvantage. The advantage is that the president would be able to get more things done and have to spend less time thinking about a new campaign. The disadvantage is if the president is bad, then you are stuck with him for a minimum of seven years. I think that just to be safe, the US should have four year terms. When a president has seven years, he has enough time to get what ever he wants and increases the chances of that president using Martial Law and creating a dictatorship.
I do not believe their exists an advantage in a 7 year term. A 7 year term just ensures a president's stay in power for longer. If he became unpopular within 4 years he still has another 3 years in office. America should not adopt a 7 year term for president because with such a powerful nation, a president who makes bad choices would have a drastic effect on us due to the fact that no one could stop him after he became president.
I believe that a longer term is a good idea for this country. Having a longer presidency also gives the president more time to instate his economic policy. Economic policy takes a very long time to kick in, it doesn't just happen overnight, and seeing as how the U.S. is in a lot of debt and economic trouble, having a good president with a stable economic policy could really help this country. It does depend on the president, but if given the right amount of time, I believe that any president can make adjustments and make a positive change. Four years is not enough time to make a significant change in this country, so I believe a seven year term would greatly benefit this country. It may be a great risk, but it is also a great reward.
I think a 4 term presidency works fine for our country. One side reason is that we have been doing it for over 100 years and it works really well. The main reason 7 terms is too much is because if they are voted in, thinking they would be a good president, but turn out to be a really bad one then they are stuck with that person for 7 years. Our current system gives us 4 years to see wether we like the president and if we do then we could vote him back into office for another 4 years. If we don't like him we could vote another one in.
I believe that a 4 year term is great. If a president is really that amazing of a president and is making a huge change in our economy to make it better, then you could debate that a 7 year term would be acceptable. Honestly, I do not believe tat there is a advantage for a president to have a 7 year term. The president, in that time, could leave our country great, or could leave our country in chaos. I believe that it all depends on the president.
Whether or not a seven year term is good for America depends on the president. On one hand, a president will be able to do more for the country. They will also have an idea of what they can do in the long run instead of just focusing on campaigning. On the other hand, you could be stuck with a terrible president. Instead of spending seven effective years in office, they could have a very long defective presidency. I would vote for an amendment increasing a presidential term. I believe having a president in office for a seven year term would be a great idea.
Having a 7 year term can be seen as good or bad in the eye of different people. Although it would be good to see an amazing president stay in office for more time, it can also be a disadvantage. For example lets say a very bad president has jus had his 4 year term and is about to leave the presidency, but he wins by chance another election until he reaches a 7 year term, there is only so much person can do for their country. For that reason having just four years of presidency is just perfect because each president brings something new to the table.
There are positives and negatives to having longer presidential terms. One positive is that the president in office will be more involved in an issue and know everything about it. If a new president had to come into office more frequently, they could have a different political view and the situation could go in another direction, and it could be for the worse. A negative is that if a president is in office for too long, they could start to feel like a dictator and start acting like one. Overall, I think that having longer terms would be better because the president in office would have a better understanding of what is going on in the country and they could have a chance to fix any problems in the US without worrying about a new president coming in and changing everything.
I think that having a president in office for four years is enough. However, it all depends on the type of president that is in office. If the president is doing great for the country, seven years may be better. On the other hand, if the president is not doing a good job in office, seven years will be an incredibly difficult time for the country. I think four years is good enough, because it is just enough time for the people of the country to see just how good the president is, and to see whether or not he is a good or bad person to lead the country. If the president is failing to do good for his country, then the citizens of the country can easily not vote for him after his first term is over. If the president is doing excellently, then he will be voted in again for a second term. Basically, it all depends on whether or not the president fits the people's opinions in a country.
There is an advantage of having a president for seven years because it always takes a few years for the president to become accustomed to the new lifestyle and the amount of power he has. So if he is in office for that long, then I believe that after he becomes use to his new position, then he can actually start running the country in a way he likes and a way the people like. But there is a risk of having a president that long because if he is not a good president then the people would be mad an not support him. On the other hand, if he is a president that people like and he does good for our country, then it would be a good idea to have him for that long. So overall, it really depends on how the people respond to his leadership and what ideas he has for the country.
I believe that their is an advantage to being in office for seven years. I think that it gives an advantage because you get lots of time to adjust to being president and having lots of power. I believe that a 7 year term might work better than a 4 year term in our country, because most of the time in a 4 year term half of the years are spent campaigning instead of focusing on our country. However, with a 7 year term, you can start focusing the country because throughout those seven years you have lots of time to campaign. Hopefully if we had a leader for seven years, he wouldn't take all the power like Hitler and do good things with all of the power our president would have. Overall, it could be good if we had a president for seven years, as long as the president doesn't take advantage of all the power.
A four year term should be the maximum amount of time a presidential term should be. If a president was in office for 7 years, you would be stuck with a president for a long time. If you don't support something a president has installed or a law he wanted to pass, you are stuck with the president for 7 years, or possibly 14 if they are reelected. America could get tired of someone making the same types of decisions for 7-14 years. Many dictators were in power for over 7 years, we wouldn't want our president to become corrupt and take over the country, because we couldn't impeach him. It is not a smart idea to have a seven year term.
I think that their is an advantage for being in office for seven years. On the other hand I think that amount of years the person is in office depends on how good of president he is. If the president has been doing great things for their country then they should be in office for seven years. If they aren't doing such great things for their country then they should be in office for only four years. I think that having two terms is the right decision if the president is in office for both four years and seven years. Overall I think the amount of time a president is in office depends on how well he does for their country.
I think that for one term 4 years is enough. If the president is good then he can serve a 2nd term. but if it was a bad president for 7 years it would just ruin everything. If there was a bad president for 4 years then they might do some damage but not compared to 7 years of damage to the US. This is why 4 year terms are better then 7 year terms.
7 year terms could be a huge advantage, but is also a risk. If the person who is elected is a good president who keeps improving our country, then it is a great thing to have him in office for 14 years instead of 8. But if the person elected keeps on worsening our country, then having him or her for at least 7 years could be disastrous. 7 years gives a bad president time to get better, but also gives any type of president, good or bad, to make bad decisions.
Our tradition of a four year presidency, limited to two terms, is a great one. First of all, seven years can start to get repetitive and the power can start to get to the president's head. Also, with a limit of two terms, if citizens do not like the president they can just vote them off the next term.
i believe that seven years is good because a lot of the four year term is spent on campaigning. it should just be one seven year tern and thats it. it would depend on who the president is to be good or bad for our county.
A seven year term could be good or bad. If the president is favored by the people and makes good decisions, then a seven year term would be great. But, if the president doesn't make good choices and the people don't like them, a seven term could be horrible.
I feel like four years should be altered. The amendment shouldn't be "however many years there elected" because that could possibly lead to a dictator. But it should state, in the rarest case, that if all electoral votes are unanimous then they can be in session for another 2 terms. I believe this is the best scenario because this way almost every person would agree this president is doing well and should continue. Also 2 terms instead of another four could benefit in many ways. For example, if the presidents last term is in the middle of a crisis or war, and there helping to stop it, they could stay another 2 years too finish the job. I do not believe Germany should have a 7 year president for two reasons. First, that many years of power could possibly go to there head, creating a dictator. Also, If half way through, citizens believe their doing a bad job then they can't stop him.
I believe that having having a four year presidential term is the best amount of time. Having a seven year term would cause the president to not do much, because re-elelction wouldn't always be on his mind. The longer term may cause the president to feel like he has to much power and act as a dictator. I would not pass an amendment increasing the current 4 year term to a 7 year term. Overall, I believe 4 years is the right amount of time for a presidential term.
Under certain circumstances a longer term could infact have some advantages. If the country is in a weak or in an unstable position (like after either of the world wars) then extending a term of a president could be helpful because its hard to ajust to change and there is no definite way to know how successful a presidents term will be. Although all of this is true, I don't believe that presented with the option to exted the term of a president I would chose to, I say this because One of the things that make America so strong is that we are a democracy, that we don't have one leader until they die, that we don't depend on one person. the fact of the matter is that we do not depend on one leader, presidents change some are good, some are less so, and there is nothing we can do about that, but we survive. we have hit hard times but we find our way back up and still manage to be one of the the strongest powers in the world.
In my opinion there should not be a longer term for the president for a few different reasons. First, if they remain in office too long than he or she may feel that they have too much power, which could lead to somewhat of a dictatorship. Which has in few situations proven to be good. Equally important for consideration is the fact that there are two political parties to take into account. Meaning that if there is a republican president that has unlimited terms than the democrats in the country will not be happy with the president and will not have the reassurance that in four years they will have the chance to have one of their candidates be the president. This is why I believe that there should not be an amendment.
I personally believe that having a seven year period verses the current 4 year term would have both positive and negative effects. I feel that it would be more beneficial for our country if we had a leader that could stay in office for a longer amount of time. With our current system, by the time our President settles in they have a couple years before the election start again. With an expansion of time the President would have more opportunities and experience in what they are dealign with. If given the opportunity to serve an additional 7 years then yes I would allow this decision. Although I am aware that this could appear as a form of dictatorship our people would only reelect the President if they had currently proved themselves as a successful leader.
This can be an advantage because of the fact the the president being elected has more experience in office and can make the right choices using good judgement. I would vote yes for the new amendment so that we can have more experienced presidents instead of rookies just starting especially during times of crisis. Plus it would be better because change is scary and hard to accustom to.
I believe that giving the president four years in office is great. Giving the president four years in office would be risky because we could be giving them too much power. If the president had seven years in office and they were not doing anything to help our country and we wanted to change the president then we would have to wait seven years until their term is over. When giving the president four years in office we are allowed to wait three less years to re elect our president. Therefore, I think the president should not serve more then fours years in office.
In comparison to four year terms of presidency in America, seven year terms have an advantage. I would vote to pass an amendment increasing our current four year presidential term in office to seven years, with a limit of serving two terms. This has to be under one condition, that the president must do an extraordinary job for his country. FDR served 12 years as president of America. If he is a dictator, that means he has absolute power. And absolute power equals absolute corruption. If his government were corrupt, would the American people still have kept him as president for so long?
President Nixon resigned at the beginning of his second because of the Watergate scandal. Why? Because he knew he did something against the law, and the American people would not allow him to stay in office.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
If a president does a good job, he should stay in office as long as possible, but if he or she abuses his or her power, the American people will throw them out. Do not underestimate Americans’ wisdom and recognition abilities. If a president is not approbated by the American people, he or she won’t stay long in office.
I disagree with the idea of having a four or seven year term for presidency. I think that there should be five year terms for these reasons. The first year of being a president, they are still getting used to the new job and new responsibilities. Then the next two years, the president actually knows what he is doing and is making crucial decisions for the country. Then finally, with the last year of their presidency, they have to worry about being reelected and if they are reelected they have to worry about doing well again. This is why I feel like a term should be 5 years instead of 4.
I believe there is no advantage to a seven year term because a president can just keep doing the wrong the for seven years and then it would be that much longer until someone can fix their mistake. I would vote against the seven year term because seven years is a long time so how do we know that someone wont change, so it would be worse for our country.
I believe there is no advantage to a seven year term. In fact I believe there is a great disadvantage because the sitting duck period would last even longer if this was the case. It gives the president much more time to make mistakes and is un-necessary. I would vote against a seven year term. This is a very flawed idea and could hurt our country.
Four years per term is just enough for the president to accomplish what needs to be done and to prove whether or not they deserve to be elected for a second term. Another large reason why each term should not be extended to seven years is because too much of anything is never good, which would negatively effect the United States. In conclusion, these statements mean I personally would not vote to pass an amendment going against another amendment already set in the Constitution.
I believe that four years is probably the best amount of time for a person to lead a country. If you have a seven year president and he is terrible and the people hate him then you have him for a hole seven yeas that's only three years away from a decade. No I would not vote for this Amendment, this would be worse for our country because we have always voted for our presidents and had 4 year terms. Bringing in 7 year terms is a road that could lead toward dictatorship.
I think having a four year term could be a good thing or a bad thing for our country, the reason being if we having a president that is really bad having him for seven years could be awful. If the president is making bad decisions we would not want him in office for that long. But if he is a really good president and he is making good decisions we would want him in office longer. This is why it depends on the president and how affective he is.
Having a seven year presidential term would not be a beneficial thing for the United States. It is good to have a change in leadership every so often because otherwise leaders may become corrupt. There are benefits to having a longer term such as leaders may have more time to go through a longer plan, but it would not be a good idea overall. The president should be allowed four years at most or else they may start to think that they have absolute control and go insane.
The presidents current term seems to be too short. It should have another year or two added in order to increase the presidents ability to create meaningful changes. The president current term lenght limits long term changes and out right stops any long term plans havng a definite possibility of completion. The president that is elected may of course be "bad", and this would present a serious problem. A president who is unfit for office in a longer term could wreak havoc on the U.S goverment. To counter act this I would suggest congress having the option of giving a vote of no confidence.
I believe that are country would benefit from having a longer presidential term because if a president is signed in to office they first have to learn how to lead a country. that can take up to 2 years and then on the 4th year they are only getting ready for the next campaign. if we had a longer time in office, are country will have a leader for a longer time. if you thing about it you will realize that if the country has a leader that is learning what to do or if he is not paying attention to the country. then we don't have a leader leading use.so that is way i would vote to have longer terms.
I believe that a four year term is good amount for our country. It has been working for a really long time and their are many reasons a 7 year term could be bad. After electing them into office, they could do something wrong and you would be stuck with them for 7 years. However, It could be good because they could do a lot of amazing things in the 7 years of their term, but it is not likely. But for the most part, it is not a good idea.
Four years is not so mush of a good system, it does not a allow a president to stabilize his policy in the government. if we were to add an amendment allowing the president to sever longer terms we should probably make it easier to impeach said president if he is a dud.
Seven years would be way too long for a president to have in office. Sometimes four years is too much for a president but to impeach a president is too difficult. Also, even if we did go with the seven year term but made impeachment easier to do, the vice president and his or her cabinet usually have the same ideas and will act as mostly the same people. The seven year term may work with one president because he or she is such a great one, but, it would be too much of a gamble because there is a risk the US has a bad president in office.
Seven years is a very long time for a president. I believe a four year term is best for all presidents, no matter how good or bad of a president they are. If a bad president, one that will not help their country, and they get a seven year term, the country will not be doing too well. If the president is really good, they could always be elected again.
Having a seven year presidential term would be extremely beneficial for our country. It takes an exceptionally long time for the president to pass a law because it needs to go through congress. Also, the president hardly has enough time to make a difference - it's already been two years since the last president was elected. A year after the president is first elected, people are usually already talking about who's running next, and if the president is able to run again, they are already contemplating their election tactic. People worry that if a president is elected for longer, they can become corrupt, or they could keep making bad decisions, but in America, the citizens have the right to impeach the president. Usually, when their term is coming to an end, they may have to make an important decision, but it is human nature to want to be in control, so they will want to make a rash decision instead of letting the next president deal with it. Also, problems that the former president hadn't been able to solve will be dropped on the plate of the new president who won't usually have much background information on it. With a 7 year term, the president will be able to get more done quicker and with more thought into it.
I believe that our constitutional terms, are superior the that of the Weimar Republic, for several reasons, including: That if acquire a corrupt president in office, we would be handing him more power, that he may use to corrupt the nation. Also it is worse for the president, because if your in politics you can do 400 things right and 1 wrong and everyone will remember the one mistake, not the 400 good things, so it actually increases his risk of being disliked by the populace of the United States. Also the Weimar Republic failed and we didn't, both socially and eco
nomically.
I strongly believe that presidents should be in office for no more than 8 years tops. Since there are so many citizens there is just no way that one presidents view on something can be the same as every single American citizen. In every president there are ups and downs according to the citizens. for example, President Obama, A lot of citizens love him as president and also a lot of citizens absolutley hate President Obama. it is impossible for every American to agree with the policies that one president brings and that is why no president should ever be in office for more than 8 years.
I strongly believe that the the max years in the office should stay at 8 years max. I think this because being in the president for 7 to 16 years would be to much like a dictatorship. Also the chance of corruption strong increases the longer you in in charge of a nation, especially as powerful as America. It would easily make that person more of a dictator than a president. Because if President Obama can make free health care in one term than what could a corrupt president do in a 7 year term?
I think it is an advantage to have a longer term for multiply reasons. First, it gives the president more time to help the country before he starts worrying about getting re-elected. Also it give the Pres.'s plans and action more time to take action instead of another Pres. coming in and changing everything after just 4 years. That is why I believe it would be a wise decision to increase the term limit to 7 years with a 2 term limit. This would drastically help the country in may ways. Overall, I believe a longer term for a president could only help the country.
I feel that a seven year term would be way better than a 4 year term. In the 4 years the first year and a half your learning how to make the US better and then in the last year you are focusing on your re-election. If the US had a seven year term it would be 4 and a half years of actual presidential work over the 1 and a half the 4 year terms offer. Although having a president for seven year period can be bad if he's a bad president but impeachment is always available.
I think it depends on how good the president is and his ideas. If a president stayed in office longer than the 2 terms, I don't think it would be bad, it just depends on his intentions for staying in office
I feel that a four year term is best because being president is a hard job, and as seen before, the drive in presidents dwindles down after about four years so, in that case they would not really be able to benefit the country. A president could also turn out to be bad, like a dictator can, with a longer term.Not only for these reasons, but having a maximum of two terms, each only having four years, give other people a chance to run and maybe offer a point of view that would not have been seen with a longer term of another president.
It depends on how effective and how good or bad the president is. If any given president is sworn in for 7 years, but doesn't seem to do much to build up our nation, it will lead people to think a shorter term is better. However, if a president is very effective and "good", it may be better for him to stay in office longer as he will do more for the people. This situation is an either/or kind of thing.
Post a Comment