Why do national leaders only get a few years?
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
Why do national leaders only get a few years?
Articles of Confederation (1781) - mandated in Article V that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate (Continental Congress) for more than three years in any term of six years."
Continental Congress (1789) - Thomas Jefferson, urging a limitation of tenure, "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress"
Articles of Confederation (1781–89) - 5th Article stated that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years".
U.S. Constitution of 1789 - set no formal term limits
- Rufus King, who said "that he who has proved himself to be most fit for an Office, ought not to be excluded by the constitution from holding it."
- Electoral College, it was believed by some delegates at the convention, could have a role to play in limiting unfit officers from continuing
George Washington - set the informal precedent for a two-term limit for the Presidency
— tradition prevailed until Franklin Roosevelt's presidency (4 terms)
22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1951 formally establishing in law the two-term limit for the President
Last edited:
This thread does not pertain to the US exclusively. Your regulations need to be justified, not worshipped.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
There is nothing to discuss. You are willing to use a lottery to chose a President of the US. No qualifications other than maleness. If the sheer stupidity of that needs to be "discussed" you are beyond clueless.
No, not a president. A KING. And it's not without precedent, nor is it illogical.
I prefer "America." United States of America" is not only lengthy, it's unnecessary. It's also a political title, not a name. America is the name.
Sounds like you're making an argument from incredulity, which, need I remind you is a logical fallacy. You reject it because you think it's "stupid." That's not a valid argument against my position.
Uh,no. It is simply stupid. One thing you got right
"Its simply stupid" is not a valid argument against my position. Would you like to make a valid argument against my position? Or are you going to continue disrupting the thread?
How about this analogy, I have a toothache, I will pick out the person to treat it by lottery from the people shopping at my local grocery store. Stupid, right?
How is that different from what you proposed? Picking the leader of your country--a king, correct--by lottery.
Actually the founding fathers seem to have liked the term:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Why is it not the name of the country?
I think that's a very poor analogy, because you're talking about someone rendering services, and I'm talking about someone leading a nation. There's nothing to compare your analogy to.
:idunno: I just don't think it's necessary. I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with calling it "the United States (of America)."
Why not just say "America"? :idunno:
For what it's worth, I don't think selecting certain offices by random draw is necessarily such a crazy idea. I wouldn't do it for an office like President (or King) of which there's only one at a time, but I would be a little interested in seeing something like the Senate filled that way. But, in my mind, it's not a substitute for something like the House, which is chosen with at least some chance of popular deliberation. I think of it as somewhat analogous to jury duty.
So using a lottery to fix my sore tooth is not good, but using it to pick a leader of a nation is? The concern should be in the qualifications of both the person doing the dental work and the person leading the country. Appears you are more concerned with the former. Wow.
Last edited:
Kit the Coyote
New member
Personally, I think the real problem with our current system for electing presidents is it has turned into a popularity contest without any real vetting for qualification for the job. I sort of think we need to drop the primary system and go back to the days when the party leadership decided on the best candidates in smoke-filled rooms and the party affirmed the one they wanted at the convention. It seems like nowadays the only real qualification to be President is that you want the job (which no sane person should want) and you know how to work a crowd.
From kgov.com/casting-lots:
| What does the Bible say about the casting of lots? What was the purpose and is there a scriptural reason today to cast lots? The casting of lots in the Bible is similar to throwing dice or drawing straws. It served two godly purposes: - Revealing God's Will to Prophet or Priest: but this ended along with the Levitical priesthood. Heb. 7:12 - Encouraging Humility: as it causes contentions to cease and keeps the mighty apart. Prov. 18:18 [To hear this topic of lots discussed, just click on over to kgov.com/casting.] On the occasions when the topic of casting lots arises, it seems that Bible students tend to recognize the use of lots in sacred history to reveal God's will, but that we tend to overlook the other more common use of lots. To Reveal God's Will (commonly taught) To Replace Judas: "And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles." Acts 1:26. Choosing King Saul: See 1 Sam. 10:20-24. (And although less obvious, see also 1 Sam. 16:7-12 about David). To Exercise Humility (commonly neglected) Difficult Decision: "Casting lots causes contentions to cease, and keeps the mighty apart." Prov. 18:18 Priest’s Order of Service: "Thus they were divided by lot, one group as another, for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of the house of God..." 1 Chron. 24:5-19. Thus priestly families who lived in the Galilee did not have to argue about who would have to travel to Jerusalem in the cold of winter or in the heat of summer. And 1,000 years later, the priests were still casting lots, for... Zacharias in the Temple: "according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord." Luke 1:9 Governmental Decisions: After the rebuilding of the wall, to repopulate their capital city, the Israelites “cast lots to bring one out of ten to dwell in Jerusalem…” Neh. 11:1 Inheritance and the Tribal Division of the Promised Land: "But the land shall be divided by lot; they shall inherit according to the names of the tribes of their fathers." Num. 26:52-56 Casting Lots Shows Humility before God and Man: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." Prov. 16:33 Some might assume that this passage provides a mechanism to guarantee supernatural information. However, hermeneutically, by looking at the immediate and the wider context, that assumption does not hold up. The immediate context has nothing to do with special revelation but it is about one's heart attitude, for the preceding verse is about anger and the following one is about strife. And book-wide, Proverbs does not deal with supernatural manifestations but with topics like self-control, understanding, judgment, wisdom, and equity. Thus, as to which brother inherits their father's car, or their father's truck, if God were to come down and arbitrate, His answer would be that He doesn't care which man gets which, but he cares about the condition of each man's heart. For a man who's father had died went to Jesus and asked a question about inheritance, but he would have received the same answer if he had merely cast lots: “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” He said to him, “Man, who made Me a judge or an arbitrator over you?” And He said to them, “Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses.” Luke 12:13-15 The man could have gotten this answer from the Lord, or he could have arrived at the exact same result if he were willing to cast lots, for God cares more about the attitude of your heart than whether you or your brother inherits your father's car or his truck. Sinful Casting of Lots: Like most things, the casting of lots too could be used for good or for evil. The Roman soldiers “cast lots” for Christ’s robe: Mat. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; and John 19:24. Feast of Purim: The book of Esther explains that Purim is the Akkadian word for [casting] lots. So the Jewish feast of Purim celebrates the defeat of Haman’s plan which used the casting of lots to pick the day on which the Gentiles throughout the empire were to to kill the Jews. Esther 3:7 By Pastor Bob Enyart Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com/writings 1-800-8Enyart |
Why do national leaders only get a few years?
If, like the Presidency, there were term limits in Congress forcing politicians to retire after 6 or 8 years, they would tend to be younger, more independent and view politics as a means to an end rather than an end in itself!
Supreme Court justices should also be forced to retire at 70 or 75 - in the 21stC, nobody is guaranteed a job for life, especially if it extends beyond one's most productive years!
If, like the Presidency, there were term limits in Congress forcing politicians to retire after 6 or 8 years, they would tend to be younger, more independent and view politics as a means to an end rather than an end in itself!
Supreme Court justices should also be forced to retire at 70 or 75 - in the 21stC, nobody is guaranteed a job for life, especially if it extends beyond one's most productive years!
I would be in favor of age limits, but not term limits. I think it's unhealthy to let members of Congress keep getting reelected well into senility, and the structure of our system often doesn't allow them to be voted out. But, far from being more independent, making them serve only a short time would keep their eyes squarely on their next career, and serving the interests of a future boss. We already have this problem as is, but if you limit them to just a few years, the problem would be much much worse. It would be better, I think, to both reduce the advantages that incumbants have in an election, and simultaneously reward repeated election with higher salary and better pensions.
Sorry, was that to provide evidence for your lottery? Then I missed the rationale.
· Lottery has been used anciently to decide divisive issues peacefully.
· Selecting leadership by lottery avoids the terrible side effects of democracies and republics.
What particular side effects would it avoid?