Final answer:
Debating a six-year presidential term vs. two four-year terms involves considering the balance between stability and accountability. The 22nd Amendment currently limits presidents to two terms, emphasizing the prevention of concentrated power. The question also touches upon the lack of term limits for Congress, where ongoing public reelection acts as a check.
Step-by-step explanation:
Discussing whether a president should serve one six-year term versus two four-year terms requires weighing potential advantages and drawbacks. A six-year term could provide stability and allow a president to implement long-term policies without the distraction of campaigning for reelection. However, it could also reduce accountability, as voters would have to wait longer to express their approval or disapproval through elections.
This concept relates to term limits and a significant constitutional amendment. The 22nd Amendment was enacted after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four times, setting a two-term limit for the presidency to prevent an extended concentration of power. Proponents argue that term limits prevent any single person from holding too much power for too long and encourage fresh perspectives in leadership. On the other hand, term limits may discourage long-term planning and result in 'lame duck' periods where outgoing presidents have reduced influence.
Concerning Congress, there are no term limits, reflecting the belief that re-election by the public serves as an effective check, emphasizing the importance of public opinion and the expectation that politicians adapt to changing societal views.