Bills Introduced to Allow More Than Two Terms for President

I don't think this is a good idea:

WASHINGTON – One thing is certain about the 2008 presidential election campaign that begins in one year: It won't involve George W. Bush as a candidate.
But bipartisan legislation to repeal the 22nd Amendment restriction of two terms for U.S. presidents could change that certainty for future presidents.

Two of the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move – Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI – have teamed up to sponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward that change in the U.S. political system.

"The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result."

Unlike Hoyer, I am a supporter of President Bush, but I believe that eight years is enough for anyone in the Oval Office. I'd rather seem them add restrictions for House and Senate rather than remove restrictions on the presidency. I think two Senate terms and six House terms is plenty. Congress was never intended to be a lifetime job - in fact, it wasn't even intended to be a full-time job.

We have term limits at all levels in the California state government, and don't think we've been hurt by turning out folks after a few years.