One of the headings on End22.com, a site devoting to "repeal[ing] the 22nd Amendment" (the one that limits Presidents to two terms). Their logo, judging by the site, seems to be a photo of President Obama followed by a photo of FDR.
I have no informed opinion on the subject of term limits for Presidents, and can see good arguments in either direction. Perhaps the voters should be entitled to choose Obama for a third time in 2016 (if of course they choose him a second time in 2012). Or perhaps the political power of an incumbent President can be made so great, especially if the incumbent knows that he may legally be reelected indefinitely, that the people will in reality have more choice if term limits are imposed.
But I am pretty sure that it's a bit early to get the public excited about "making Obama's third term possible," though maybe that's the slogan that's needed to get donations from the base. And more broadly, it seems to me that this is the sort of amendment that -- like the Twenty-Second Amendment itself -- should be drafted not to apply to the person who is in office when the amendment is proposed. Both as a matter of policy and politics, any such change should be focused on the principle, and not on allowing the reelection of any particular person.
I really like the 22nd Amendment. Eight years of one president is enough.
Probably, an act of "straight up" racism.
Then non-consecutive terms, as in Virginia.
That really bugged me.
Therefore, I feel some form of politically estoppal should apply to that meme.
So if we do repeal the 22nd amendement, which I do not think we should do, we could just exempt everyone who has served as president before from the amendment so that who ever is currently president can only serve 2 full terms.
Grog smash tiny keyboard with Grog's big fists.
So, if Rep. Serrano is actually behind this group, he's being doing this a lot longer than Obama has been President. Maybe he knew something back then that we didn't.
(Although I voted for Obama, I agree that it would be bad, as a matter of policy, to allow a president to run for a third term.)
And Clayton, why do you bother making half of the comments you do? What was the point in writing, "No surprise that someone is tying this to Obama," other than to be a partisan hack? This type of campaign is done all the time. I'm sure it was done for Bush II, Reagan, and Clinton. It would be nice if there were a filter for your comments.
Signed,
Someone tired of having to scroll through lots of useless, partisan hack comments to read the useful/informative/interesting ones
Like Eugene I hope that any future relaxation of the term limit would be inapplicable to the incumbent. (Actually, I hope this never comes up - IMO it's unhealthy for the country to be overly dependent on a single individual).
From the same people, who told you that Sarah Palin's VP pick was a game-changer!
Maybe he could get Chavez to ship him some ballots?
Oh. Well, that's good enough for me, then.
It is difficult to discern motive of bill sponsors, but Serrano has advocated for this repeal in both Democratic and Republican administrations, so I don't accuse him of purely partisan motive in this. Nor do I find convincing evidence that similar efforts under Reagan and Bush II were purely partisan. Under Clinton, maybe some of them, but not all.
Thus I am distressed that you leap so readily to the conclusion "oh, they all do it; nothing to see here, move along." If there is one thing the good-government groups pound their head over, it is this attitude from the American people. They don't all do it. Some politicians are much guiltier than others, and it pays to figure out which ones. Otherwise, all accusations have equal weight, and we move farther and farther into PR politics.
Yes, it does prevent someone from serving.
The Amendment places additional qualifications on the holder of the Presidency (beyond citizenship, residency and age) - namely that people who have been elected twice, or who were elected once but served more than 1/2 of a predecessor's term, are ineligible.
The general understanding is that the qualifications to be VP are the same as to be President, so it is generally believed that a former 2-term president cannot be elected VP.
It is also understood that any person in the statutory line-of-succession below the VP, who is not otherwise constitutionally eligible cannot assume the office (hence why Elaine Chao was never the "designated Cabinet secretary" at SoTU addresses - she's not native-born and couldn't assume the office in the event of a disaster).
So, presumably a two-termer could not be elected either President or VP, and while there is nothing preventing a future administration from appointing an ex-President to a Cabinet office, the succession would likely pass over him should it ever come to that.
Personally I think 2 terms is 1 too many.
Clayton, you seem grumpy today. Don't you think that Obama would make a decent Supreme Court justice, especially if he is the Chief Justice? There is a precedent for this, as I am sure you know.
I've always liked this idea and believe it should apply to presidents and senators. I'd like to see those in the house limited to serving no more than 4 consecutive terms.
Oddly, I would not object to someone serving 4 consecutive terms in the house, then 2 consecutive terms in the Senate than 2 terms as congress. I don't even mind if the do this in any order. I'd just like to see more movement in general. I also think our system would benefit if elected officials knew that at some point, they would no longer benefit from running as the incumbent.
You'll never get a writing gig at The Corner or Cato with comments like that.
The really interesting question is who would actually decide - the courts generally eschew these kinds of questions - the political question doctrine (and possibly issues of standing). It would seem like it would come down to Congress to decide most of those questions (by challenging and refusing to count votes for a former two-termer seeking election as VP - or by refusing to approve the nomination of such a person under the 25th Amendment - or by writing something into the succession law that would address the question as applied to former two-termers that might wind up in the line-of-succession).
If the people of America elect GWB or Obama for 23 consecutive terms then they get what they get. If they give more votes to a 5-year-old from Peru who campaigns on a promise to create the world's best Paris Hilton fan site, then they get what they get.
Besides, it took 140 years without an imposed limit before someone even tried for a third term. There are what, maybe two presidents since FDR who even might have had a chance (Clinton and Eisenhower)? It hardly seems a crisis that required Constitutional change to prevent.
"Eight years of one president is enough."
A mere four years of this president is too much. George Bush seems to have started out to destroy the American economy, and Obama seems determined to finish it off. BHO might even mean well, but he doesn't understand much about economics and it shows. But back to the main point: term limits.
George Washington set the precedent for a president serving more than two terms. Indeed he didn't want a second term. Every president honored that unwritten contract with the American people until FDR. One might understand why FDR sought a third term given the Depression, but his seeking fourth term is unforgivable. He suffered from high blood pressure, emphysema, atherosclerosis, angina pectoris. Indeed according the Wikipedia entry for FDR, And so he did. Obviously the Democrats knew this was going to happen which is why they dumped Wallace from the ticket.
Now "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." [Proverbs 26:11], we have people who want to eliminate term limits to retain an obvious narcissist. I don't buy the argument that the people should have the right to create a cult of personality. Our whole government is set up to prevent the people from doing foolish things.
What would be the alternative? Direct public referendum--like in Honduras.
Hmm...would that explain the administration's irrational support of Zelaya?
After a full two-term Presidency (and Vice-Presidency), a new President is elected. A week or two before the Inauguration on January 20, both the President-Elect and the Vice-President-Elect are killed.
The 20th Amendment states "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January," so the incumbents don't get to simply hold onto the position.
So who is then entitled to be sworn in as President at 12:01 pm on January 20? Does the Speaker of the House succeed, and get to serve a full 4-year term? That seems the most likely outcome.
So what if, further, the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore are killed immediately prior to the Inauguration? Does the House elect a new Speaker, who then immediately takes over as President? If Congress doesn't elect new leadership by January 20, who takes over on the 20th? Does the Secretary of State ascend? Or do Cabinet tenures end simultaneously with the President they serve under, meaning that they're not Cabinet officers capable of succeeding once the Presidency becomes vacant?
So let's just skip the formalities and make him president for life. All the countries with cool Maximum Leaders and spicy food are doing it... so why shouldn't we?
All in favor, say, "Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye..."
It is highly unlikely that there would exist a situation in which all of: the President-Elect, the VP-Elect, the Speaker and the President Pro Tem would be dead. An election for Speaker, or for President pro Tem can occur at any moment, and certainly can happen very quickly if those offices become vacant. In fact, the President pro Tem election is pretty pro forma and goes to the most senior member of the majority party.
So it would seem that for your scenario to play out the Speaker and President pro Tem would probably have to be killed at the same time and not long before the beginning of the new terms (I would say the same day - if the House and Senate both knew that there was no President-Elect or VP-Elect and that the Speaker and/or President pro tem would have to take the oath, they'd probably convene rather quickly to replace one or both if something happened, even if that meant convening a session on the morning of the 20th to elect successors).
Should all of the offices be vacant however, the next in line would be the Secretary of State. Remember that Cabinet officers' terms do not expire at any time - it is simply convention that all of them tender their resignations at the change in power. In theory the "old" Secretary of State could simply not submit a resignation and would therefore be next in line (the same would hold true of any Cabinet official - you'd just find the most senior one who hadn't resigned as of 12:01pm on January 20th).
Honestly one thing I have to really give Correa in Ecuador a large amount of credit for was that although he pushed for a new Constitution, he looked to the US for examples of good term limits for the office of President....
Why should 8 years in Congress (or 20 or 30) translate into a ton of money afterward simply because you have contacts in the Pentagon, Capital, or White House (which you developed on the taxpayer's dime)?
There are plenty of jobs out there.
This would be more accurately termed "rational opposition to extraconstitutional impeachments achieved by military force." I've seen no evidence of substantive "support" for Zelaya by the Obama administration, so much as the existing means of democratic transfer of power in Honduras.
Residency limits. Unless you lived in DC, Virginia or Maryland at the time of your election, you cannot live or work in DC, Virginia or Maryland for X (8, 10) years after leaving office. (Election to another office excluded.)
That would mean you can't leave office and imediately get a chushy lobbying job (ie Dascle, Lott).
Such an amendment stands as much chance as repealing the 22nd though. Less.
If you want to argue that the constitutional definition of a "year" is the commonly understood meaning of the word at the time of the signing and that Congress has no authority to legislate contrary to that meaning without an amendment, then the constitutional definition of a "dollar" is still 375 grains of Spanish silver.
By all means. Why bother to amend the 22nd amendment, even? We can just have Ortega come in with some troops if anyone gets squirrely when the day comes. Viva la revolucion!
One of the most hisorically ignorant comments I have ever read here. Almost every proposed const amenment in the last hundred years had a seven year expiration for ratification. In fact I think almost every single one of the 27 amendments to the constitution was proposed and ratified in less than 7 years ( the 27th amendment being the obvious outlier -- assuming it is even really a valid amendment).
I don't have the solutions to that, but I would like to see it.
LOL! I think I proposed this a couple of years ago just for the pleasure of seeing the Democrats turn purple.
ruuffles:
Why think small? First married Justices and the first Black female Justice!
That really bugged me.
Therefore, I feel some form of politically estoppal should apply to that meme.
It bugs a lot of us, so I'd suggest not bringing it up until someone -- preferably someone of consequence and not Some Guy Somewhere -- actually uses it.
By the way, Portland Ore. or Portland Me.?
Actually the Stawlarts supported Grant in 1880 (a third non-consecutive term) and TR ran again in 1912. While techinically not a complete third term, he couldn't have run again if the 25th Amendment had been in place at the time. He served nearly 3.5 years in his first term.
There's no proof he would be any good at it. He's never written anything about the law, at least that his people are comfortable distributing. He doesn't even strike me as a person who has thought about legal theory in any depth, other than insofar as it can be used as a tool to further political aims. There's those few interviews that came out before the election where he whined about courts not doing enough to throw off the shackles of the constitution in order to foster equality, but that's about it, and serve as decent evidence of my hypothesis.
He got elected president, so that skill presumably would lend itself to consensus building. On the other hand, I'm not sure his apparent vapidness--Hope! Change!--would win any conversions on its merits. I believe people vastly overstate his intelligence and abilities as a thinker, mostly because of the pathetic nature of his most ready comparisons in those areas (Bush, Hillary). There's a reason the Telemprompter meme is the only real personal shot that's gained any traction since he's been president; a lot of observers kind of sense we've been sold a bill of goods on what a genius he is.
But I'd love to track down who paid for the site and the bandwidth and figure out if they are (1) Obama supporters, or (2) clever folks pushing the "Obama is a tyrant who wants to seize power and OMG now they are repealing the 22nd Amendment" narrative.
If the people of America elect GWB or Obama for 23 consecutive terms then they get what they get. If they give more votes to a 5-year-old from Peru who campaigns on a promise to create the world's best Paris Hilton fan site, then they get what they get."
Well yeah, but the idea here is to save the people of America from themselves.
It is doubtful that Mr Twenty-eight-percent would have won a third term against anyone.
If polled approval ratings are any guide, Reagan would probably have won a third term against Mondale without breaking a sweat. Likewise, Clinton would probably have won a third term against W.
See http://preview.tinyurl.com/2apqfe
GV - "I'm sure it was done for Bush II, Reagan, and Clinton..."
I remember hearing the suggestion from some Republicans for Reagan, but not by anyone who had a chance to do anything about it. I'm sure someone said it about Bush II around 2004, but by 2008 I doubt they were still saying it.
7.6.2009 4:07pm
(link)
Alex S. (mail):
...
Besides, it took 140 years without an imposed limit before someone even tried for a third term. There are what, maybe two presidents since FDR who even might have had a chance (Clinton and Eisenhower)? It hardly seems a crisis that required Constitutional change to prevent.
84 years. Ulysses S. Grant tried for a third (nonconsecutive) term in 1880 but didn't get the nomination.
To say that Clinton had a better shot at third term than Reagan is really a huge swing-and-a-miss. Clinton never broke 49% of the popular vote. Reagan had a 49-state landslide. Clinton's VP lost the election to a simpleton Governor from a weak-governor state. Reagan's VP won another 40+ state landslide, running on a "Reagan's third term" platform.
Don't forget that in his 3rd term, FDR rounded 10s of thousands of citizens and put them in internment camps. I wonder what Obama's 3rd term will be like?
These politics are definitely personal. Outside of China, Cuba, Soviet Union etc, have you ever seen a politician's mug more than Obama's? Shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, party invitations, etc. I'm comfortable with our democracy electing people I disagree with, and I understand he bears no blame for this, but the omnipresent pictures creeps me out.
This would be more accurately termed "rational opposition to extraconstitutional impeachments achieved by military force." I've seen no evidence of substantive "support" for Zelaya by the Obama administration, so much as the existing means of democratic transfer of power in Honduras.
We've been over this one before. The Honduran constituion contains an article (IIRC 275) which authorizes all persons to act (including collectively) to remove from office any person who attempts to eliminate term limits. Zelaya's removal was sanctioned by the Honduran Supreme Court.
Zelaya also attempted to fire a military officer for refusing to obey an illegal order. It seems pretty clear to me that it was a lawful response to an attempted coup on the part of Zelaya.
Constitutions can be such a nuisance. Maybe you'd rather we ignored them when they got in the way.
But there is the point, why stop with repealing the 22nd amendment and go straight to Article 2 Section 1. All the central American dictator types have been also expanding the length of their terms as well as the number of terms they can have. By by following this logic Obama can be president for 24 years or nearly a quarter century.
Of course Hillary will have killed him by then since if he stayed that long she would be too old to be the first female president.
FWIW, I am a liberal. I would have said the same thing if this debate had been happening during Reagan's Presidency. I see this as an issue of constitutional principle, not party politics.
By his own press secretary's admission, he didn't really teach constitutional law. He taught "X-and-the law" courses that may have included con law issues. Posner, for whatever his opinion is worth, commented that Obama was a good teacher, but not a deep thinker; that he though of the law as a means to an end, that end being political.
I know it's blasphemy for someone to dare opine that the guy isn't Socrates. I'd love to have some actual legal writings to trash, but they don't exist because he was too busy, or didn't care enough, to do them. Or maybe he realized his own limitations (I doubt this, he seems pretty sure of himself) and took a pass. Regardless, if I was getting paid to write books about how rad of a guy I was, and they were helping me get elected senator and president, I probably would spend my time on that, too. The whole plan seems to have worked out pretty well for him.
Someone here said, as if it were self-evident, that he'd be a good Supreme Court justice. I've not seen why.
Obama taught at the U of C and I understand that he was a good teacher and was well respected and all that. Probably could have gotten a tenure track job and been granted tenure after getting a couple tickets punched. But, that doesn't really say anything at all about his qualifications for the SC. To consider his teaching experience a significant qualifier for the SC is a lot like suggesting someone should receive the Nobel in physics for being a good junior professor at MIT.
A few of the exams that Obama wrote for the class he taught at the University of Chicago Law School, and the grading notes from them (what he was looking for in the answers to a question), are available online and you can look them up.
They are... adequate. Actually, they are Mister Feelgood. He is more nice than critical. I will bet that everyone in his class left liking him and thinking he agreed with them. (And interviews of his students concur with that.)
He was teaching Civil Rights law and discrimination lawsuits and stuff like that. And it is easy to see from those tests that he agrees with Sonia Sotomayor on race and racism and racialism, and why he would choose her and her biased beliefs.
Of all the things that Barack Obama has gotten a pass on, his days teaching law are the most glaring. How is it even possible that he didn't publish anything in that time? He couldn't even hop on someone else's paper as a second author? No dinner conversations with other professors ever blossomed into a joint work?
I don't expect any brilliant scholarship from the man, but I find it incredibly bizarre that after years of teaching and practicing law, Obama couldn't reduce anything to writing other than his daddy issues.
Now that would be an helluva' magic bullet!
Presidency for life seems to be in vogue these days...
But as for Congressmen and Senators (some commentors in this thread wish to limit their careers to a few terms), I wouldn't see. Isn't their personal voice already limited in comparison?
Not really trying to pick a bone or anything, but don't those two statements seem somewhat contradictory?
BTW, long ago I believed I found a possible dictatorial inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution. Not sure if it was Godel's, but would allow for something awful.
Article II, Section 3 reads:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper...
Combined with Article II, Section 2, Clause 3:
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
The first would allow the President to adjourn Congress indefinitely, but depends on Congress giving him the opportunity by disagreeing about adjournment in special session. The second would allow him to fill all government positions without needing the Senate to vote on any of them. The Constitution does not specify how many Supreme Court justices there shall be, nor who determines the number. So the President's first recess appointments could be 10 new Supreme Court justices who would outvote the other 9 and approve everything the President does.
No more so than the continual hagiographic treatment of Ronald Reagan by his supporters. Not only is he quoted (and misquoted) by Republicans at every turn, his supporters are very close to breaking the First Commandment. Even UCLA, part of the University of California system that Reagan grossly interfered with as governor, has groveled at the trough by naming its hospital after him. No doubt to attract big money Republican donors.
And the State of California has replaced its statue of Thomas Starr King, who kept California in the Union during the Civil War, with Reagan.
Barf.
"Barf"?
Even Obama has said Reagan was the most "consequential" president of his lifetime (sending Bill Clinton into a Presidential Snit).
What exactly has Obama actually done to deserve the blind adulation and virtual pass he has gotten on his sophistry?
The two term tradition established by George Washington is just that, a tradition. Just because he did it doesn't make it right, and given the increase in life spans since that time repealing the 22nd amendment makes sense.
I'd love to see the leaked stories should the Democratic nomination come down to Clinton vs. Clinton.
Why does Obama need to worry about the 22nd amendment? Can't he just bankrupt the country and then partner with a second-rate European power and/or a US labor union with the provision that he be appointed the president of "new USA"?
Obama's comment goes to show how short his lifetime has been; and I agree Reagan was a very "consequential" president. My barf is directed at the same blind audulation that you (apparently) feel President Obama is receiving but ignoring the same when it is given to Ronald Reagan (even more so now that he is dead.)
While I voted for the President (given the other choice it wasn't too hard), I don't think he deserves any more "blind audulation" than Reagan does (in fact I have been disappointed by many things Obama has or has not done.) Complaining about the "blind audulation and virtual pass" given Obama while ignoring the same given to Reagan is (pardon the phrase) the pot calling the kettle black.
Not really. Whatever your political bent, Reagan actually did things and, to borrow one of his actual quotes "made a difference".
Obama has gotten elected, with virtually no record (to your point, because of who ran against him) and has used sophistry to simply do many of the things his predecessor did that he roundly criticized during his election campaign. Before that campaign he was a one term senator and "community organizer". Now, I admire a good rent strike as much as the next fellow, but I hardly think, at this point anyway, the President could carry Reagan's water.
One of the advantages democracy has over other forms is the orderly change of power. Power corrupts, and as politicians are corrupted, democracy provides a mechanism for removing that power.
The 22nd Amendment puts an upper bound on how corrupted the President can become.
(1) The dime has a particular association with FDR because of the March of Dimes which he founded.
(2) Since Reagan was alive at the time, he would have had to die to be on the coin, and he'd still have to wait two years. (That provision must have come in since 1963 since Kennedy didn't have to wait.)
Reagan will apparently get his own presidential dollar (although he's not listed on the US Mint web site). Carter won't get one unless he dies in 2014 or earlier.
I couldn't agree more.
This all happens because gerrymandering has become a high art. Every ten years, each state redistricts its legislature and House seats. And that is when most Congressional seats are locked in for the next decade.
And why is that bad? I would suggest because of the level of corruption that such a system engenders. Right now, it looks like a significant number of the top Democrats in the House have ethical clouds hanging over them, and the thing that they have most in common is that they have all been in Congress for decades. And, really ditto for the Senate.
There just aren't that many 1st and 2nd term dirty Congressmen. The percentage is much, much, higher for 10th and 20th term ones. And because of the decennial gerrymandering, there is no way to get the bums out, short of conviction, and not even then sometimes.
(I'm pleasantly surprised nobody has made a comment about Obama's birth certificate; please don't let this start it).
At least Reagan, like, you know, accomplished stuff, in sixteen years of elective office as head of the largest state and then two terms as president.
Obama was literally worshipped on the cover of every news (sic) rag and slobbered over by all except one of the networks in the country before he even was sworn in, after a meteoric rise during which he accomplished, er, ah, well, hmmmmm, he did write two autobiographies telling us how wonderful he is. I guess that's something.
Double barf.
... if its true its very very bad.
But the kettle REALLY IS BLACK!
But one good argument for term limits is surely the much greater willingness of 2nd term presidents to do unpopular things in the long term interest. Do it too much in the first term and you don't get re-elected but in the second term, with nothing to lose, why not? Presunably this useful dynamic would be absent if you an eye on a third term.
The lame duck-unpopular actions theory still holds unless you abolish all term limits whatsoever (Pres. Smith will just do those unpopular things in his/her third term). Abolishing all term limits might eliminate such actions (though I think the assumption that such actions are a useful dynamic is debatable).
@Abandon
I can understand the skepticism as there aren't really obvious constitutional/balance of power issues at stake, but I think the desire for term limits for congressmen is a reaction to perceived corruption and unwieldy power in the bodies themselves. Because of seniority rules, built in incumbent advantages, and a relatively high initial barrier of being ability to efficiently wield influence in the senate and house you get certain congressmen who wield power in pretty unethical or 'undemocratic' ways with little fear of reprisals (see bill jefferson or ted stevens [at least until he was actually under indictment] amongst many others). Term limits in both congressional bodies may reduce efficiency (this is arguable) but the perception is that it will also diminish the number of personal interests that mar otherwise good policy.
With no incumbent in the race, if the voting public had had the additional consideration of electing a President who could conceivably serve for decades, rather than 8 years tops, that could've easily affected certain voters at the margin. And it would've likely affected them in only one direction.
One of McCain's primary weaknesses in the campaign was his age. But that would have been a strength, at least for some voters, if the new President were permitted to serve indefinitely. Obama is easily seen as a candidate capable of ongoing popularity, and his age is such that he would be able to serve upwards of 20 years in office. McCain, on the other hand, would be guaranteed not to serve longer than two terms; he wouldn't need term limits to get him to give up the office.
And whether or not it would regularly affect election outcomes is one matter, but the lack of executive term limits would create an incentive to elect older candidates, just to hedge against their willingness or ability to hold the Presidency for decades at a time.
You guys really need to keep your stories straight; I thought Obama only won because he was running against W and not McCain?
Mind you, Bill would have handily won against W, perhaps that's what you're thinking of?
That's fairly nonsensical -- they'll have at least one more November to throw him out.
You forgot Reagan. He would have beaten Dukasis every bit as bad as he did Mondale. Anyone who thinks that Iran-Contra would have hurt Reagan has been reading the NY Times and The Nation far too much.
Barring a complete Constitutional overhaul, they'll have one November every four years to throw him out. Even without term limits, we're not electing dictators-for-life.
But incumbency carries with it certain benefits, including a much higher probability of winning the next election than if one were not the incumbent. Had Al Gore been inaugurated in 2001, how likely would it have been that George W. Bush would have won in 2004? One hugely significant benefit is that the incumbent President almost never has to fight for his party's nomination; that's the power of the status quo. And when America voted last November, there was no incumbent, and so one of the things we were voting for was who would be the new status quo. And a two-term limitation was one of the universally-understood parameters of that new status quo.
FDR entered office at a time when two-term Presidencies were customary, but weren't enforced. He gave no early indication that he would break from that tradition, either. But once he did, and once he was a popular President with eight years of status quo in his favor, the American public kept electing him until he died.
Hence the Honduras policy. Karl Rove is not the only snake in the Direct Mail swamp.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper...
Combined with Article II, Section 2, Clause 3:
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
The first would allow the President to adjourn Congress indefinitely, but depends on Congress giving him the opportunity by disagreeing about adjournment in special session. The second would allow him to fill all government positions without needing the Senate to vote on any of them. The Constitution does not specify how many Supreme Court justices there shall be, nor who determines the number. So the President's first recess appointments could be 10 new Supreme Court justices who would outvote the other 9 and approve everything the President does.
Presumably the power to "adjourn" the houses of Congress refers to adjourning one of those "extraordinary occasions" and doesn't grant the President the power to keep Congress permanently out of session.
Anyway, this wouldn't work since Supreme Court justices vote on cases. They have no power to walk in the door the day of their appointment and "vote" on something that has nothing to do with any case before them. And the President would be impeached before the ink was dry on those 10 Supreme Court recess appointments.
I don't think the United States is magically immune to the danger of Caesarism, so perhaps someday we'll see a President try to find some extraordinary means to remain in office longer than constitutionally permissible, but I doubt it would take the form of trying to dump 10 recess appointments on the Supreme Court at once. That's an invitation for instant impeachment.
It also seems to me that we suffer because of a President having a shot at a second term of four years. I wish Presidents served a single term, 5 years, 6 years perhaps, so their staff would worry less about reelection and spend more time trying to get things right in the time they have. I have this old-fashioned and quixotic idea that once elected a POTUS should stop thinking so much like a partisan and more like a statesman and visionary. That's really hard to do if you need to run a campaign during your first term.
Maybe someone has mentioned this --- I didn't read ALL the comments coming to this late --- but I worry about burnout given the nature of leadership, media exposure, the unrelenting pressure, and the speed of change in this world. I suffered burnout myself, after years in the business leadership meat grinder with little time for R&R. If affected decisions in both my personal and professional lives. Just because people THINK you are still on your game, and WANT you to keep going nonstop, doesn't mean you are up to it in the same sense you were years before. I should have been "repotted" 3 years before I was. In other words, I could have USED a term limit.
The whole thing is a troll. Guy wants to get mentioned by Limbaugh and make money on the ads.
National Review
Don't forget Uribe ;-) Or is he omitted because he is on the "right?"
Actually the issue with the Honduras coup is that it seems to me that strictly speaking, the VP should have been given office instead of the head of Congress. While I agree that Zalaya's removal was probably legal under Honduran law, I don't think it goes so far as allowing removal of the entire administration.
My understanding is that Zelaya's VP was already a candidate for the upcoming presidential election, and as the Honduran Constitution forbids sitting presidents from seeking re-election, he was therefore unable to take the position. Instead, the presidency has gone to the third in succession, who is of the same party as Zelaya.
If my understanding is correct, they have not removed the entire administration, but have gone to the next in line of succession eligible to serve in the office.
Registrant:
END22.COM
277 North Avenue
Lower Level
New Rochelle, NY New York
US
Registrar: DOTSTER
Domain Name: END22.COM
Created on: 07-DEC-08
Expires on: 07-DEC-09
Last Updated on: 19-DEC-08
Administrative, Technical Contact:
Administrator, Site whoisadmin@end22.com
END22.COM
277 North Avenue
Lower Level
New Rochelle, NY New York
US
914-576-5090
914-576-0000
So the site was created last December and the number belongs to Foy Management Inc.
The whole cabal needs new blood in it. Incompetents need to be forced out, and if voters can't seem to do it, term limits should.
In CA there is a big meme about how term limtis prevent us from having a really "professional and knowledgable" legislature. Given the performance of most of these people to fail to learn the job or their real duties to voters over the 8-14 years they can paddle around Sacto, I have to say any more time will be totally wasted and we lose the chance to bring in new people who might perform less miserably. You have to be dumber than dirt not to learn your way around a place in that length of time...and they are and they won't learn any better if their stay is extended.
If those jerks get any more professional, imagine the fiasco...
We elected one President For Life, let us try to avoid that mistake again.
Actually, we have elected seven presidents for life.
Right. Because nobody would have been concerned about 20 years of President Palin.
Brian G:
Not Iran-Contra. Alzheimers.
Leave Amendment XXII alone, please.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.