Term limits

v=Before I begin my speech, I would just like to ask my opponent to use the spell check. It makes it easier for everyone to understand you. >>If the president is doing very well then we can't just let him keep on running what would the world be like. Why not? Is there any reason that a President should not be allowed to be in office if he is liked very much? If he is liked very much, and everyone approves of what he is doing, then there should be no reason that he cannot have more than 2 terms. >>You act as an election is the next it is every 4 years you can't just If we did not want them in office, then we could just not vote for him/her in the next election. That can't happen. I do not quite understand what you are saying with this statement. Please clarify. >>Yes we can do something about it for if it is his third time running obviously he is liked very much, now do you think that we can just easily convince everyone not to elect him the next terms, rather then 1st or second term it would be much easier and people would be convinced. If there is a better candidate, then of course the people would vote for the other candidate! It is not like one president will always be liked by everyone forever. Also, if the President is not doing a good job, or is not doing what we want him to do, then we can always not vote for him in the next election. >>Suppose he wants to make a bill that would help him greatly and he's a republican, just assume: I am pretty sure that in the congress or supreme court has at least one republican-I said AT LEAST do you think that they would vote against him or for him? Exactly giving him supreme power. Also on that point if he has been elected for his 3rd term I am pretty sure he is liked by a lot of people which means, they would vote for him if he wanted to pass a bill and they would support him. No offense, but this is a ridiculous argument. You are giving a hypothetical scenario where the President tries to suggest a law giving him supreme power. Fist of all, no one would pass this law. This clearly goes againts the Constitution. There are supposed to be 3 equal branches of the National Government, and no one branch is supposed to have more power than the other ones. Also, if the President tried to do anything unConstitutional like try to get more power, it is the Supreme Court's job to make sure that the President never does it. The Supreme Court is in place as a check for the other 2 branches of government to make sure that everything thye do is Constitutional. My rebuttal to your point: >>If there was no term limit you have to think about the rest of the world, how would they deal with the same president over and over again. What if that president has a view to keep all the soldiers in france. Now do you think that the French President would be happy and not wage war against this president? First of all, all the power of this country is not with the President. You make it seem as though he has unlimited power. He cannot order the military to stay in any place outside of the US for more than a certain amount of time. More than that, and he has to get approval from Congress. Also, the real power of this country lies with its citizens. It is the citizens who give the power to the government. I believe that we drafted the Declaration Of Independance saying that if the people do not believe in the government, and they are not doing what the people want, then there should be no reason for us to follow the government in place, and it is our right to overthrow the government and create a new one. I belive that the quote is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. If you look at the quote, you will see that it introduces a concept that was well known in Europe: consent of the governed. As you can see, if we don't like the President, we don't have to vote him into office again! If the President tries to do something unConstitutional, the Supreme Court and Congress were created to stop something like that. I have refuted all of your points, and now I will advance my points. The crux of my argument is simple: if the President is doing a good job, then why should we not let him be in office? If the President is doing what the public wants him to do, then what are we fearing? My opponent has said that the President might want to pass a law getting more power. He has also said that the President might change his views after 2 terms in office. You could turn this around and say that even if we had a limit for only one term in office, the President could change his views by the second year. Then we could do nothing about it. When we vote a President into office, this is a risk that we take. However, unless we liked the way the President was President, we most likely would not vote him back into office. Thank you. P.S. By saying him, or he, in reference to the President, I am not trying to be sexist. I just did not want to have to type him/her again and again.