22nd Amendment to be repealed?

[Joe Republic]

Link


Should presidents be allowed to serve more than 2 terms?
Bills introduced in Congress to repeal 8-year restriction of 22nd Amendment

Posted: October 8, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


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."

Until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term during World War II, there was no such restriction in American law. A tradition of presidents serving two terms only began with George Washington.

"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."

Hoyer argues the 22nd Amendment "has the effect of removing the president from the accountability to political forces that come to bear during regular elections every four years."

Rep. Howard Berman, D-CA, is another advocate of the move.

"I don't like arbitrary term limits,'' he said. "I think our country was better off because Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to run for a fourth term. Imposing an arbitrary limit makes no sense.''

Should the resolution pass and be approved by the states, the repeal would not go into effect until after the Bush presidency, making him ineligible for multiple consecutive terms.

The 22nd Amendment states: "Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

"Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress."

Hoyer's bill is not the only one in the House with the same goal. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY, has introduced a similar resolution. Both of the Democrats have been working on repealing the 22nd Amendment since the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Former President Clinton is on record as approving of the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

[MaC]

No, and there should be term limits for congressmen who propose an absurd ideas. It's one of the few good amendments of the 20th century.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If there's a good thing about term limits - it prevents the paralysis that long term incumbency brings.

We've had a few PM's who managed hanf around for a while, one Menzies was PM from 1949-66 (I mean sweet Jesus!!!) - Howard's been around for nearly 11 years. Even if you re-elect someone of the same party - at  least people are more likely to put more thought into it.

[The Dowager Mod]

As long as there is no limit on the other branches, yes.

[bullmoose88]

As long as there is no limit on the other branches, yes.

No, and there should be limit on the other branches.

The only question is, what limit do you put on SC justices...10 years? 20 years?

[John Dibble]

No, it shouldn't be repealed. It might result in a really good president being booted forcefully, but it can also result in a really bad president who happens to be popular(or the other party just runs crappy candidates against them) from staying in office for too long. And yes, it's undemocratic, but democracy in and of itself isn't necessarily a good thing - the constitution was originally designed to limit the powers of democracy, though those limits have been torn away somewhat over the last century or so, and the term limit is perhaps the only limit added. I'd rather not see the presidency stagnate in the same manner that Congress has.

I'd perhaps support it as a compromise if we could give electing the Senate back to the state legislatures.

[Brandon H]

As long as there is no limit on the other branches, yes.

No, and there should be limit on the other branches.

The only question is, what limit do you put on SC justices...10 years? 20 years?

I would support 18 years on SC Justices (as long as there are 9 of them).

As far as the 22nd Amendment goes, I think it should probably stay.

I'd perhaps support it as a compromise if we could give electing the Senate back to the state legislatures.

Yes, we should repeal the 17th Amendment, regardless of what happens to the 22nd Amendment.

[© tweed]

Yes, of course.  In the name of democracy, let the people vote for whom they choose.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, of course.  In the name of democracy, let the people vote for whom they choose.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, of course.  In the name of democracy, let the people vote for whom they choose.

But we're a republic, not a democracy.  I could see possibly modifying the 22nd so that it limited a president to no more than two consecutive terms while allowing as many terms as one can get elected to subject to the restriction on consecutive terms.   (It's what some states have for gubernatorial term limits.)   

[Speed of Sound]

The 22nd creeps me out. If the people want him in, I say he stays!

[TomC]

Yes, of course.  In the name of democracy, let the people vote for whom they choose.

But we're a republic, not a democracy.  I could see possibly modifying the 22nd so that it limited a president to no more than two consecutive terms while allowing as many terms as one can get elected to subject to the restriction on consecutive terms.   (It's what some states have for gubernatorial term limits.)   

I agree with this.

[Joe Republic]

Unsure. Of course, it might be appropriate to repeal it for good presidents but hell W is reason enough to limit terms to one, never mind two

Dave

I can't see how ensuring that a bad president will lose re-election by actually removing their right to run for it could possibly be a good way to run a government.  In any case, the American people were given the opportunity to limit GWB to just one term, and decided against it.

[adam]

Yes. I think people, not term limits, should decide when a president leaves office.

[Democratic Hawk]

Unsure. Of course, it might be appropriate to repeal it for good presidents but hell W is reason enough to limit terms to one, never mind two

Dave

I can't see how ensuring that a bad president will lose re-election by actually removing their right to run for it could possibly be a good way to run a government.  In any case, the American people were given the opportunity to limit GWB to just one term, and decided against it.

It was meant to be tongue-in-check, Joe. Only I neglected to put the in, and deleted my post instead of editing it

Dave

[Joe Republic]

Ah, gotcha.

Also, out of interest, why do you delete about half of your posts right after you've made them, and sometimes re-post them later?

[Nym90]

I'd strongly support this being repealed. I trust the people to make good decisions about who to vote for for President.

The entire case for term limits rests on the premise that the people are too stupid to vote "properly" and that we must force them to vote a different way than they'd like to. That violates every principle that this country rests on in my opinion.

I must say that I'm especially surprised that Libertarians would want to take away the freedom of people to vote for whomever they choose. Seems to be one of the most fundamental of all freedoms in my opinion. A classic case of "nanny state" government telling us what's good for us instead of trusting the people to make good decisions, I'd say.

[Beet]

I would like to see term limits repealed at the state legislative level first.

I do not believe any single individual should be President for longer than eight years. One of the great things about the limit is that no matter how much one side dislikes a President, you know he won't be President after a certain point. At that point, there is a change. Republicans living in the 1930s and 40s when it seemed like Roosevelt would be President for their whole lives must have been in an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[Nym90]

I would like to see term limits repealed at the state legislative level first.

I do not believe any single individual should be President for longer than eight years. One of the great things about the limit is that no matter how much one side dislikes a President, you know he won't be President after a certain point. At that point, there is a change. Republicans living in the 1930s and 40s when it seemed like Roosevelt would be President for their whole lives must have been in an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I would agree that generally speaking, it is not good for a President to serve more than 8 years. I would absolutely support this being used against any such President in the campaign by the opposing party.

But I think that's the bottom line; it should be an issue, yes, but ultimately the people are the only ones who can be trusted to weigh the pros and cons in each individual case of a President staying in office longer than 8 years. In the case of FDR, I think him staying longer than 8 years was a good thing, due to World War 2. The "no 3rd term" issue was used against him fairly effectively, and did help lead to him getting a much smaller percentage of the vote than he had in 1936.

[Beet]

I would like to see term limits repealed at the state legislative level first.

I do not believe any single individual should be President for longer than eight years. One of the great things about the limit is that no matter how much one side dislikes a President, you know he won't be President after a certain point. At that point, there is a change. Republicans living in the 1930s and 40s when it seemed like Roosevelt would be President for their whole lives must have been in an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I would agree that generally speaking, it is not good for a President to serve more than 8 years. I would absolutely support this being used against any such President in the campaign by the opposing party.

But I think that's the bottom line; it should be an issue, yes, but ultimately the people are the only ones who can be trusted to weigh the pros and cons in each individual case of a President staying in office longer than 8 years. In the case of FDR, I think him staying longer than 8 years was a good thing, due to World War 2. The "no 3rd term" issue was used against him fairly effectively, and did help lead to him getting a much smaller percentage of the vote than he had in 1936.

Well, this is where I break with the populist position. Obviously, in our republic as Ernest points out there are checks and balances on the popular will, and the term limit is one of them. Its there to put a limit on the power of unchecked populism, repeatedly electing a candidate who happens to be personally favored by the masses, but who eventually grows into an idol with undefinite ability to bully the opposition. If people prefer a certain set of ideas to continue, they can continually re-elect the same party. But I don't believe in Kings or Big Brothers, not even popularly elected ones.

[Nym90]

I would like to see term limits repealed at the state legislative level first.

I do not believe any single individual should be President for longer than eight years. One of the great things about the limit is that no matter how much one side dislikes a President, you know he won't be President after a certain point. At that point, there is a change. Republicans living in the 1930s and 40s when it seemed like Roosevelt would be President for their whole lives must have been in an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I would agree that generally speaking, it is not good for a President to serve more than 8 years. I would absolutely support this being used against any such President in the campaign by the opposing party.

But I think that's the bottom line; it should be an issue, yes, but ultimately the people are the only ones who can be trusted to weigh the pros and cons in each individual case of a President staying in office longer than 8 years. In the case of FDR, I think him staying longer than 8 years was a good thing, due to World War 2. The "no 3rd term" issue was used against him fairly effectively, and did help lead to him getting a much smaller percentage of the vote than he had in 1936.

Well, this is where I break with the populist position. Obviously, in our republic as Ernest points out there are checks and balances on the popular will, and the term limit is one of them. Its there to put a limit on the power of unchecked populism, repeatedly electing a candidate who happens to be personally favored by the masses, but who eventually grows into an idol with undefinite ability to bully the opposition. If people prefer a certain set of ideas to continue, they can continually re-elect the same party. But I don't believe in Kings or Big Brothers, not even popularly elected ones.

Oh I absolutely agree with checks and balances. I'd never support a total direct democracy.

And I absolutely agree that what's popular isn't always right. I've never said the will of the people should be trusted in everything, and I certainly believe there should be protections for the minority against the majority.

I strongly support checks and balances, and I think we have an adequate system in place through 3 branches of government with one of them being completely unelected and each of the other two only partially elected directly (due to the Electoral College and "first past the post" districts in the House and of course with the Senate giving equal power to each state regardless of size).

But voting seems to be one area in which who we decide to cast our ballots for should be pretty unrestricted. The freedom of who to vote for, along with freedom of speech and of religion, has to rank right up there as the most important freedoms and the ones that should have the least restrictions on.

I can certainly respect and understand your concerns, though, and rest assured I do share them. I just think at the end of the day the American people can be trusted in who they vote for (and if they can't, then we are basically screwed as a country anyway ).

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not true if we have term limits.

You said voting for offices should be unrestricted. Should we abolish age requirements? Residency requirements? Possibly yes, but I wouldn't say I'm against restrictions on principle. I would say you look at the individual restriction and whether or not it serves a purpose that outweighs the costs.

I only support limits for executive offices, because this is the only level where I think there is a risk of cult of personality upsetting checks and balances. Frankly, there are many things I do distrust the people on: I distrust them to vote directly on how to interpret the Constitution, for example. That's why we have judges. I distrust them to vote on individual rights, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. I distrust them to vote directly on all on legislation, that's why we have representatives who do it. The whole idea of checks and balances comes down to these institutions that limit situations where pure majority rule is a problem. And I think executive-office term limits is one of those protections.

Term limits do not prevent the continuations of the same themes, the same ideas, the same policies, or the same directions. All it prevents is continuation of the same person, beyond 8 years. I think people have a tendency in some cases to build up a cult of personality; to create an idol whose personal aura and lure eventually becomes its own independent force. By this point we are basically electing royalty, a kind of royalty anointed by the majority. Executive term limits keep this tendency in ultimate check and focuses our democracy on the ideas, the policies, and the processes, and not any one individual. That is why I support them.

[Smash255]

Yes. I think people, not term limits, should decide when a president leaves office.

^^^^^^

[John Dibble]

I'd strongly support this being repealed. I trust the people to make good decisions about who to vote for for President.

So you agree with the decision on GWB then?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keep in mind though that who you vote for affects other people if that candidate wins. Also keep in mind that democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority if it's allowed to become too democratic. We want people to be able to run their personal lives as they see fit so long as they aren't harming others, and that end will not likely be accomplished if things get too democratic. These ideas aren't putting limits on individuals and how they can run their private affairs, they are putting limits on government and how it works. We endorse the ideas because we believe that structuring government in this way will be better for personal freedom.

In other words we trust people to make decisions well enough with their own lives, but when it comes to making decisions for other people we aren't nearly so trusting.

[Democratic Hawk]

Ah, gotcha.

Also, out of interest, why do you delete about half of your posts right after you've made them, and sometimes re-post them later?

Because I intensely dislike the Edited by .... stuff

Dave