Questions about the Highly Unlikely

[angel_luv]

I would like feedback on the following questions, which I was considering today.

I realize neither of the following are likely to happen, but I still wonder,
" What if..."

How would it be a benefit or a detriment to our country if we made it so presidents were only allowed to serve one term?

Also, what if people were required to complete their time as a Sentator before they were allowed to run for the office of President.
Would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?

I am curious in all your takes, so thanks in advance for them.

[fyatuk]

Reducing Presidents to one term results in the same detriments as anything else that gets limited. You end up with continually shifting priorities in our government and it makes it harder for anything to get accomplished. A lot of things usually get done at the beginning of a President's second term. That's not to say they're all good things, but it definitely limits how much will get done. I think 2 terms is a good balance for President.

I don't like the idea of requiring Senators to finish their term. They should be required to RESIGN if they seek a different office (like Texas requires it's state's officials to do) to allow someone to represent the people who are neglected in their campaigning. Illinois, Arizona, and Delaware are all currently under represented in the Senate because of campaigning, but if the Governor/Legislature could replace them like a vacant seat, then at least they will have their full representation.

A big thing that'd be nice to see would be term limits in both the House and Senate. Maybe it's just me, but I dislike the whole District King thing several congressional distrcts have going (like my district with the Gonzalez family).