A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
There’s been a lot of back-and-forth here on Ricochet about whether Barack Obama is likely to be reelected in 2012. I’m not smart enough to figure that one out, but I do know the incumbent has tremendous advantages when seeking another term, and the opposition candidate has a great deal of trouble appearing “presidential” when he’s facing a guy who can campaign from the White House (unless it’s Reagan vs. Carter). And, of course, there’s still a lot of time until the next election, and the variables are just too great to allow for any sort of clear picture to form right now. However, I’m less concerned with 2012 than I am with 2016 and beyond. By that I mean, how long do you think it would take supporters of a victorious Obama in 2012 to begin asking questions about the 22nd Amendment?
That amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the States in 1951, limits presidents to two full terms. Before that time, Chief Executives generally followed the lead of George Washington with self-imposed two-term limits. Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term but failed to get the nomination. Then, of course, came Franklin Roosevelt who was elected four times. Dwight Eisenhower, the first president to fall under the restriction, objected to its passage on the grounds that it automatically made a second-term president a lame duck from day one, and there have been several efforts in Congress to repeal it, but they didn’t get very far. Generally, however, its provisions have pretty much been accepted by most Americans.
But back to a reelected President Obama. Knowing it would take some time for a change to be enacted by the states, why wouldn’t his ardent supporters begin campaigning for repeal right after the 2012 election? The arguments are pretty straightforward: The country survived without it for most of its history. It was just a knee-jerk reaction to FDR’s electoral success. Eisenhower was right; it weakens a second-term president. Shouldn’t the voters have the right to decide who sits in the Oval Office? Repealing a “misguided” amendment isn’t unprecedented; remember prohibition? The President could remain above the fray and suggest it’s up to Congress and then the States to decide the matter.
Just something to think about as you’re dozing off tonight.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
I think the problem with FDR was the "President for Life" effect.
I might also note, that anytime a "we just don't do that" convention is trampled on, it is always by a Democrat.
Feb '11
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
"but I do know the incumbent has tremendous advantages when seeking another tem, and the opposition candidate has a great deal of trouble appearing “presidential” when he’s facing a guy who can campaign from the White House (unless it’s Reagan vs. Carter)"
So what about the power of an incumbent after 2 or 3 or 4 terms? Would we not be back to the chance of another, God forbid, FDR?
Sep '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
The Obama Regime routinely ignores judicial rulings, recognizes the application of the law to select groups only in some cases, and simply flouts the law in others. It does not bother to involve the Congress in matters where (formerly in similar circumstances) appropriate, and is directly involved in widespread voter fraud and intimidation via its many sycophantic community-organizing vehicles, including (the now defunct but almost certainly reborn under other names) ACORN.
Why should we not expect Obama's loyal subjects to use this tactic to put their Dear Leader in power in perpetuity?
Edited on Mar 30, 2011 at 8:20amMay '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
The obvious beneficiary of such a repeal wouldn't be Obama. There'd be Miss Me Yet? billboards springing up across the nation, featuring ... Bill Clinton.
Mar '11
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama try to find a way to stay in the White House if he loses in 2012. Some crisis will demand "continuity of authority" or some such nonsense.
Jun '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
Too many red states. You need two-thirds. I can assure you at least 14 of the following states would not approve such an amendment if it meant that Obama could run again: Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. In fact, I don't think even half would approve: even blue/purple states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have Republicans running their legislatures.
Jun '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
What's wrong with lame duck status, anyway? I think there are clear benefits.
Jun '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
Watching Obama speak at Georgetown now. The jutting Mussolini chin is back. The know-it-all, effete, condescending professorial arrogance. He's lecturing us on energy. His current term in office is a nightmare. A second term would be prolonged torture. A third term? Please stop, Pat...no more...this isn't even funny.
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
It would be such a delicious irony, it would almost--almost--be worth seeing it happen. Imagine Obama's troops managing to push through ratification only to see Bill Clinton come in and get the nomination. What fun!
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
That assumes no color changes in 2012. Of course, you're almost certainly correct. My speculation is akin to a kid seeing a monster movie at a theater. He feels good when he exits and realizes it wasn't real.
Oct '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
Pat—you must be a Birther-Tea Party extremist, because the “living and breathing” US Constitution doesn’t need to be amended for Obama to do what ever he desires. The penumbra of rights for Democrats is unlimited by any constraints of the text or precedent.
Jun '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
Pat Sajak
That assumes no color changes in 2012. Of course, you're almost certainly correct. My speculation is akin to a kid seeing a monster movie at a theater. He feels good when he exits and realizes it wasn't real. · Mar 30 at 9:13am
We can't be too careful. Some horror stories really come to life if we let them.
May '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
It's three-fourths. You need two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures. So 13 to block.
Mar '11
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
There certainly is precedent for Obama ignoring the constitution, and even the courts. What organization would be responsible for evicting 'Dear Leader' if he should decide to just ignore the 22nd (maybe he just decides it's unconstitutional, as he did with DOMA) and campaigns to be reelected for a third term?
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
This will not happen. I do not believe that a single state legislature would support it. The Dems pretend to love Obama. He won, after all. But the leading figures know what we know -- that the man lacks executive temper. None of them have the courage to challenge him openly. Without the black vote, they are finished. But they do known how to drag their feet.
Feb '11
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
Seems to me there was a small amount of talk about repeal during the Reagan administration, but I don't recall anyone's actually sponsoring such an amendment.
In any case, the only way it could possibly pass were it to exclude the sitting president, as did the twenty-second itself.
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
For various reasons, Pat--none of them involving carousing or even, frankly, pleasure of any kind, I assure you--I was feeling especially groggy this morning. Hurried through my first cup of coffee to get to my second--that kind of groggy--and, if I had to engage in a touch of self-diagnosis, I'd have said my blood pressure was actually low.
Your headline cured me.
Thanks, Pat. I'm worked up enough to make it through the day just fine.
Jun '10
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
PJ
It's three-fourths. You need two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures. So 13 to block. · Mar 30 at 9:43am
Another good reason why we actually need to read the Constitution. I'll take ten lashes for my error.
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
Peter Robinson: For various reasons, Pat--none of them involving carousing or even, frankly, pleasure of any kind, I assure you--I was feeling especially groggy this morning. Hurried through my first cup of coffee to get to my second--that kind of groggy--and, if I had to engage in a touch of self-diagnosis, I'd have said my blood pressure was actually low.
Your headline cured me.
Thanks, Pat. I'm worked up enough to make it through the day just fine. · Mar 30 at 10:41am
Always glad to help, Peter.
Mar '11
Re: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?
Umm, I'm not going to be "dozing" tonight with that to think about. That's just fodder for nightmares. Man, to think I was just getting over a bout of insomnia...