Limiting reps
Jun 24, 2019 | 7529 views | 0 0 comments | 594 594 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Dear Editor,

As my Commander in Chief, I support the president of the United States, just as I have for every former elected official who has occupied the Oval Office since Dwight David Eisenhower.

I have not agreed with, nor have I necessarily voted for, each of the previous eleven occupants of Pennsylvania Avenue, but I abided by the result of America’s freedom to elect such leader in a duly Democratic election.

When the people spoke, it was the law of the land, and if a mistake was made, the opportunity for change always presented itself again like clockwork four years later.

The Founding Fathers never meant a government election to be a lifetime appointment, but rather a privilege to serve the needs of our growing Republic.

In turn, new volunteers would emerge to relieve those who would then return to their trades and occupations, knowing they had made a difference during their term in the seat of responsibility.

The politics of the land is not a permanent career to place future power and control into the hands of a very few, but to serve the needs of the immediate masses through the cooperative efforts of all in lending a shoulder to the wheel of progress.

Constitutional law now binds the POTUS to serve but two consecutive terms as the chief executive, but the debate continues to rage on for limiting of all federal representatives to a determined limit of terms in one office.

The nonstop campaigning from the end of one election cycle to the next has virtually stagnated efforts to concentrate on needed legislation, for which all were sent to Congress to achieve.


Robert W. Rice

Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet