Term Limits

First of all, I did prove my points within the examples. I happen to have a degree in history. Your argument is simply if people want it then they should have it. Well people wanted Hitler. People wanted Lenin. People wanted Oliver Cromwell. I could keep going but I think you get the idea. People being more educated? Are you serious? I have moved around a bit and I dunno... They think Obama is an Arab and Iraq had something to do with the attacks on September 11th. Studies have also shown that people pay less attention to politics now than in the past. Back in that day you speak, politicians were celebrities. People were very aware of their state and federal government elections. Senate and Governor elections get a lot of press. Just because you and the people you surround yourself with are ignorant to state elections does not mean the rest of the people are. And it is insulting to our past citizens of this country to assume they were more ignorant to understand politics than today. Politics held a great deal of meaning because these were the people that were dying in wars in THIS COUNTRY (not overseas) for politics. We elect a president, not a vice president. Franklin D. Roosevelt was an excellent example in how the party used his popularity and loyalty to secure the next president. I am not denying he was a good president; however, his health was an issue at that point. Truman was not Roosevelt. And the will of the people is not always about picking the best man for the job. Many times politics and ignorance come into play. From 1860 to 1912 all the presidents were Republican. After the Civil War, people were considered outcasts and traitors to vote Democrat. The man that secured the Republican nomination (with the exception of Hayes whose Presidency was secured in secret trade but not relevent to this debate) would be president. You also have the influence of propaganda. For instance, McKinley was not a good president at all (although I have a neat original poster of him on my wall... he is my fav). He started a war using yellow journalism declaring Spain attacked the US by blowing up the USS Maine which we know now did not happen (actually it was just plain stupidity lol). Yet the "will of the people" bought into this and he was re-elected. Grant was not a good second term president. He did not get his party's nomination, yet he was willing to run again. He was talked out of this and government was worried because of his popularity as a general. And if you would like something a little bit more current since we seem to know better lol, Reagan secured his presidency by making a secret deal with Iran not to release the hostages until after the election and would get arms (and later the trading would continue in the Iran Contra Scandal which btw I did an awesome term paper and presentation on hehe). The people didn't know this when electing him. In fact, a lot of dealings are not known until after a president has left office (and will continue this point in a later paragraph). I could keep going with examples of the "will of the people" but again... you think people should just vote and get what they get, whether they are wrong or not. That is irresponsible. The 22nd amendment was created to limit the power of the Presidency. Limiting the power has gone on throughout American history. It happened to Johnson (that would be the first one) by limiting his power with the military. It happened after Roosevelt to make sure that a president didn't stay in office too long that he would gain too much power and strength (perfect example is Hugo Chavez but you can even look at countries in Africa, Middle East, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, North Korea, etc for evidence of this). And it happened after the Vietnam War where the US got involved with a war that was never declared by congress yet was the product of the Presidency. The will of the people does not always serve their best interest. There is also accountability. It is not appropriate to bust a sitting president. Why? It would show bad leadership to the world. We do not want to appear weak by holding a current president responsible for crimes and accusations unless it is unavoidable (ie: Nixon who was forced into resigning). The majority of Americans vote with their party, not for who will be the better candidate. They do not care who is running on the other side. In an election, there are the key states that candidates focus on. This is because the mix of the two parties is about even (IA, FL, WI, PA, OH, etc...). The candidates are not looking to gain support from their fellow party supporters but to win over independents that make up the ruling factor in that state. This is where change matters. This is where limits matter. Propaganda, accountablity, secrets, etc. are not always known. And even though we have more ways to get out info than say 1908 or 1878 or 1848, etc... politics (state and federal) have always been important. The only difference now is that we discuss a potential VP's wardrobe and watch comedian make jokes. And I think if you ask our first publicly elected president Jackson, he didn't appreciate the public thinking his wife was well... lets just say a not so nice term to call a woman due to propaganda hehe. So I am done with this unless you can prove to me that the "will of the people" is always right 100% of the time. Limits were not set because they were afraid of the "will of the people" but more of "the will of the people" being taken away. I don't think anyone in this country wants an elected dictatorship. And yes my response before was late. I had been pretty ill over the weekend. I apologize for that.