Arguments Against
1 Six-year Term for U.S. President
We would be stuck with a bad president for six instead of only four years.
A President might have been better if free to choose cabinet and staff from both parties.
A President with no future reelection is a lame duck and thus lacks clout.
Senator Mike Mansfield refuted that lame duck argument at a Congressional Hearing:
“The same is true today as soon as a President is reelected to a second term---the 22nd Amendment saw to that.”
“Lameness relates to the strength and quality of the person. If a President becomes a lame duck, it is not
because of any inhibitions imposed by a single term. An unlimited number of terms would not sustain such a
person.”
“On the other hand, a six-year President who rises to responsibilities will have sufficient time to organize an
effective and successful administration.”
CONCLUSION:
If it were true a President is ineffective because there is no opportunity for a future election, then why allow a
President to squander two years of the first term trying to get into a second four year term in which there is no
opportunity for a future election?
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |