For as long as democracy has existed, term limits have existed. Both Cicero, the famous Roman statesman, and Aristotle, the renowned Greek philosopher, felt term limits were an essential part of any republic's constitution. This was mainly due to their fear of monopolization of power by a single person. It may have been a justifiable fear in the ancient political world, but in modern America, it is irrational. Because of the multiple parties and interest groups in our government, and the power of legislative bodies, such as Congress and Senate, no individual could gain absolute rule. There should be term limits, but not ones that guard so heavily against such impossibilities and create unnecessary political drama. The practical six-year term limit should be implemented in the new millennium, and the dual four-year term limit must be re-evaluated and dismissed.
             The average length of a presidential campaign is one and a half to two years. This number has increased with the advent of the new millennium. If an incumbent plans to run for the presidency a second time, the last year of his presidency is almost certainly devoted to his second bid for the presidency. All monies are used to fund his campaign. The president travels the nation in an attempt to revive himself politically and personally in the eyes of the American people. In the meantime, no one is fulfilling the duties of the president in the White House and little to nothing is getting accomplished. As opposed to the so-called "Honeymoon Period," hardly anything truly gets done in the president's last term, especially if he plans on running again.
             Many would argue that in the event that America elected a president that proved to be a popular, exceptional leader during his or her six-year term, the inability to re-elect him or her would unjustly deprive American voters. Realistically speaking, the difference between
             ...