Four MORE Years?
For those of you counting down the days until January 20, 2017 (there are 1,444 left, by the way) in the hopes that the country will still be more or less recognizable as a republic, this might seem to be a strange time to bring up the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, but bear with me. The restriction on serving more than two full terms was ratified in 1951, after nearly four years of going through the complex state-by-state ratification process. Prior to that, only Franklin Roosevelt had won a third term (though others had tried), and, of course, he went on to win a fourth as well. For those in favor of term limits, the question is not repealing the 22nd, but spreading it, or something similar, to other offices. But for those opposed to term limits— those who want voters to decide — this could very well be the time to push for repeal.
This subject comes up most frequently when a relatively young person has been elected. The last three men to live in the White House averaged less than 50 years old when first sworn in, and there’s every reason to believe that youth will continue to be served when it comes to choosing our Commander-in-Chief. The problem for the party in office is that a suggestion to repeal looks and feels like (and probably is) a power grab. If, however, a young and popular conservative Republican were to be elected in 2016, we might very well support repeal, or if a major global conflict were ongoing in the future, we might want the kind of continuity the country seemed to prefer during World War II. In any case, history has shown there’s not much stomach for more than two terms, so the likelihood is low. But, under special circumstances or with the right person, why not? Even Ronald Reagan thought the question should be left to the voters rather than to an arbitrary limit.
Most important, the possibility of additional terms would restore accountability to a second-term president. Many of the initiatives now being unleashed upon us might have been avoided if another election loomed. Repeal would take time, and it would likely have no affect on the current occupant of the White House (Truman was exempted from the 22nd), but if Republicans were to champion the cause while they were out of power, it could stand a better chance of passing and might very well accrue to their future benefit. It might even force parties to fight about ideas rather than merely running out the clock.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Four MORE Years?
I am far from alarmist Pat, but it strikes me that this is a perfect circumstance for the emergence of a populist dictator a la Hugo Chavez. With continued usurpation of authority through aggressive expansion of the administrative state, the president can continue his populist war against the rich, granting more and more benefits to the masses while using his unique vantage as an incumbent to assassinate the character of any remotely qualified challenger in the Ohio media market. No thanks. Eight years is plenty.
Mar '11
Re: Four MORE Years?
With the 47% growing to 51%, Mr Obama could stay in power indefinitely, rather like Hugo Chavez (not that I am suggesting they are in any way similar) - what could go wrong?
Sep '12
Re: Four MORE Years?
Who were the Presidents who went for a third term, pre-FDR? I can think of only one: Teddy Roosevelt, running on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. But even he was only elected once to the Presidency, in 1904, having assumed office after the assassination of President McKinley in 1901. Grover Cleveland declined nomination by a faction of the Democrats in 1896, at the conclusion of his second, non-consecutive term.
Edited on February 5, 2013 at 7:05pmNov '11
Re: Four MORE Years?
Nope. When the federal executive and his judicial appointess and his administrative officials were properly restrained, unlimited terms made sense. But nowadays, unlimited terms would quickly devolve into tyranny. There is no "right person."
Edited on February 5, 2013 at 7:14pmApr '11
Re: Four MORE Years?
I think I'd prefer a single six-year term for president. Doesn't it seem like everybody is sick of the president -- no matter who he is -- by about the 7th year?
Re: Four MORE Years?
Paul Wilson: Who were the Presidents who went for a third term, pre-FDR? I can think of only one: Teddy Roosevelt, running on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. But even he was only elected once to the Presidency, in 1904, having assumed office after the assassination of President McKinley in 1901. Grover Cleveland declined nomination by a faction of the Democrats in 1896, at the conclusion of his second, non-consecutive term. · 38 minutes ago
Edited 37 minutes ago
Despite his debilitating stroke, Woodrow Wilson very seriously thought about running again in 1924, mostly as a referendum on the League of Nations. The scale of fantasy involved there is underscored by the fact that he ended up dying well before the 1924 election.
Oct '10
Re: Four MORE Years?
"It might even force parties to fight about ideas..."
This is where the idea jumped the tracks. The parties don't fight about ideas, because in order to fight about ideas you need a forum in which to engage the fight, and with the "mainstream" media totally in the tank for the Left there IS no forum to do this.
Until the Fourth Estate sheds its corruption and restores integrity to itself, or until the GOP braintrust pulls its collective head out of its collective arse, term-limiting the POTUS should remain. And term-limiting the rest of the federal government would be ideal.
Re: Four MORE Years?
Paul Wilson: Who were the Presidents who went for a third term, pre-FDR? I can think of only one: Teddy Roosevelt, running on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. But even he was only elected once to the Presidency, in 1904, having assumed office after the assassination of President McKinley in 1901. Grover Cleveland declined nomination by a faction of the Democrats in 1896, at the conclusion of his second, non-consecutive term. · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
I believe Grant also (very reluctantly) sought a third term and was denied the nomination, much to his relief.
Re: Four MORE Years?
Generally speaking, that's true. So a third term would be rare. Without the 22nd, I wonder who might have had a shot at staying in office beyond eight years. Absent age and illness, maybe Reagan, and I suppose Clinton.
Edited on February 5, 2013 at 8:29pmMar '11
Re: Four MORE Years?
Grant ran for a third (non-concurrent) term in 1880. He was opposed by John Sherman and James G. Blaine. Grant was in the lead at the convention, when the anti-Grant forces united behind Garfield.
May '10
Re: Four MORE Years?
Absolutely not. It's one thing to end up with a superannuated representative, senator, or justice drooling on his or her vest, the rest of the group can muddle on short-staffed. But the presidency is a singular office where the incumbent must needs be of sound mind.
It's bipartisan. Byrd, Thurmond, Kennedy, Hyde, Rhenquist, Blackmun all should have left 10, 20, even 30 years prior to being carried out feet first. Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid have both stayed way too long.
Somewhere between the age or 70 and 80 it is time for people to step down and let younger hands take the reins. I'd draw the line at age 70, by that time they've been sufficiently fattened on the public teat to manage quite nicely in retirement. Anyone still able and willing to "make a contribution" can work for a non-profit, or lobby firm, or whatever.
Finally, what makes you so sure Obama would be exempted?
And please God no more dynasties. No more Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Reagans. In a country of 300,000,000+ surely there are capable people who can be elected without name recognition from a previous incumbent.
May '11
Re: Four MORE Years?
Recalling the idea that we were to have citizen legislators who would go to Washington, do their business, and then come back home to their "normal" lives, makes me question those who would make a "career" of politics. Recent posts and comments about George P. Bush (Jeb's son) declaring that he was going to run for office though he wasn't sure which indicated that career pols are not well trusted.
Having a President that could "run forever" really scares me.
May '10
Re: Four MORE Years?
My preference is the opposite. A new amendment to extend term limits to all of the other lifers rather than just the prez.
Dec '12
Re: Four MORE Years?
I have to shoot this down. I would shoot this down even if they found a cure for death and could reanimate Reagan as a healthy 35 yr old ready to rule for 50 years.
I think it is a healthy thing for a society to learn that the particular people elected office is largely unimportant. While it is true that particular presidents and politicians have been critical in leading society through particular transitions (Lincoln comes most to mind), our system of government is not based on this ideal. The Constitutional ideal reflects notions that electorates cannot be assured of choosing the right people, so those people must be restrained when they have power. The 22nd Amendment is good defense against the tyranny of personality.
Apr '12
Re: Four MORE Years?
Well, if it weren't for the oversized, run-away administrative state we have on our hands today, I would be an unqualified supporter of repeal.
Voters should be accountable for their actions, just like anyone else. The 22nd merely gives them cover--protecting themselves from themselves, so to speak, which never seems to work out.
Since the administrative state is our real enemy, why not go back to allowing newly elected presidents fire everyone in the executive branch? Repeal not just the 22nd Amendment, but annul the Pendleton Act and the Hatch Act as well. They just replace one form of corruption with another.
"Throw the bums out" doesn't really work when all you do is throw out the bums' bosses.
It's like outgoing Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood recently said "this is the best job I've ever had in public service." By that, he seems to have meant it was easy for him to get a whole host of regulations established--all of which carry the force of law. These regulations are exponentially easier to write than it is to fight to get legislation through Congress.
This is the Miracle-Grow of the populist bureaucracy.
May '10
Re: Four MORE Years?
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And I'd add, from my observations of Congress' behavior, that the longer one is in proximity of power the less likely one is to wield it wisely and for the intended purposes.
My preferred approach would be a single term for any elective office: President, 6 years; Senate, 8 years, House, 4 years. And once you've served a term in any office you are ineligible to serve in any other office. Get rid of career politicians and get back to the citizen serving his country. In fact, I would prefer the positions be filled by a lottery drawing from a pool of volunteers.
May '10
Re: Four MORE Years?
Not to mention the obvious stupidity of the electorate. Present company excluded.
Dec '12
Re: Four MORE Years?
Well, there is a middle ground (to borrow from a nearby thread). The Articles of Confederation were generally a disaster, but they were on the right track in one respect. From Article V:
I've proposed this be adapted and used on the House and Senate in other writings; there's no reason a similar thing couldn't be used for the Presidency, also.
It would break up the dangerous power accumulation from incumbency while letting We the People have, ultimately, our choice for office.
Eric Hines
Oct '12
Re: Four MORE Years?
There is larger and larger percentage of the population that now 'vote for a living' rather than 'work for a living.' Term limits are the best hope to keep this 'buying' elections from the 47% to continue to worsen. [sarcastic voice insert-->] At this time I'm willing to consider going back to a monarchy. No re-elections.
Oct '12
Re: Four MORE Years?
eehines: Well, there is a middle ground (to borrow from a nearby thread). TheArticles of Confederation were generally a disaster, but they were on the right track in one respect. From Article V:
I've proposed this be adapted and used on the House and Senate in other writings; there's no reason a similar thing couldn't be used for the Presidency, also.
It would break up the dangerous power accumulation from incumbency while letting We the People have, ultimately, our choice for office.
Eric Hines · 22 minutes ago
How about we do away with elections, make congressional seats like jury duty. One term and done.