Posted on 11/30/2013 7:35:40 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
An op-ed in the Washington Post went viral this week as it drew controversy advocating for an end to presidential term limits.
In the piece, bluntly titled “End presidential term limits,” New York University history professor Jonathan Zimmerman suggests that the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms of office should be repealed as a way to assuring a more effective presidency and protecting democracy from a leader without fear of voters’ wrath.
Citing the treatment of President Obama in the wake of his troubled Affordable Care Act rollout and a nuclear deal with Iran, Zimmerman argued that if Obama could run again, he might not be facing such “fervent objections” on the former from Democratic leaders like Bill Clinton; and, on the latter, from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).
“Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear,” Zimmerman wrote, adding that a term-limited president does not “have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all.”
“If he chooses,” the professor continued, “[a term-limited president] could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?”
Ultimately, Zimmerman concluded:
It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.
What do you think? Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed and presidential term limits be overturned? Take our poll below:
Repeal Presidential Term Limits?
Yes
No
Yes, maybe Obama wouldn’t have all these second term Blues/disasters only IF he could run for a third term.
But waddabout GWB second term Blues 2005 to 2008 ? (too painful to recall details.)
Maybe those disasters woulds have been avoided only if he could have run again. Its magic.
Only if. The big ‘What if?’
Agreed.
But that doesn't mean when the SHTF (thanks to them) that they are going to find it a cakewalk. Not where I am, anyway.
When social order breaks down, the knockdown homies will find that it's a lot tougher going after armed and belligerent folks than blindsiding old people on the sidewalk.
Right now, the law is restraining us, not them. When there is no law to restrain us, there will be a dramatic shift in the dynamics.
To paraphrase the Doors, we got the guns *and* we got the numbers.
As long as he spends his 3rd term BEHIND BARS AND SHACKLED !
What difference at this point in time does it make when you’ll have the Smartest Woman in the World in 2017 anyways?
I’m beginning to think limiting a President to a single term is a better bet. Too many get into trouble or run smack dab into mediocrity (or worse) going for a second term. It also relieves them of having to spend so much time on fundraising.
Think of some of the things that would’ve been avoided in the past century...
Wilson (1917-21): No WW1 entry (as likely 1916 winner Charles Evans Hughes would’ve probably kept us out).
FDR (1937-45): Failure to end the Depression his policies exacerbated might’ve led to a more Conservative Dem succeeding him (such as Cactus Jack Garner) and curtailing the policies. No successful effort to transform SCOTUS into big gubmint advocates, no purge of Conservatives from the Dem party. Perhaps a Republican elected by 1940 who would’ve run WW2 differently (and not allowed carte blanche Soviet sympathizers into governmental institutions) and no kowtowing to Stalin.
Truman (1949-53): Though technically a de facto second term, was largely a disaster across the board both domestically and abroad. No firing of Gen. MacArthur, who would’ve aggressively pursued Mao and drastically altered the dynamics of Asia for the long run.
Eisenhower (1957-61): Losing the Congress to Hooverian proportions in 1958, a one-party body effectively for 40 years.
LBJ (1965-69): (Like Truman, a de facto second term) No Great Society fiasco, overreach on the CRA, mishandled escalation of Vietnam.
Nixon (1973-74): With no second term to run for, no Watergate (and no blame on Republicans who paid dearly in 1974)
Reagan (1985-89): No Amnesty, no Iran-Contra, no loss of the Senate
Clinton (1997-2001): No second term sexcapades, no ChiCom deals for 2nd term campaign $$, no putting the country through an impeachment fiasco.
Bush II (2005-09): No losing the Congress, no bailouts or other gov’t expansions on his watch.
Zero (2013-17): Too numerous to list the fiascos, and those yet to come which will take decades to recover from.
I’m thinking probably the only President in the past century who did as well in his first and second terms was Calvin Coolidge. Left no disaster on his watch and got out when it was good to go (though I would’ve liked to have seen how he would’ve differed in handling the Depression, perhaps reducing it to a simple Panic of 1929).
Works for me as long as we go back to 1790 voting requirements. I mean heck, it was established law.
Kinda like Caesar.
Interestingly, that was one of the fixes in the Confederate Constitution of 1862....its Presidents could only be elected to single six-year terms. Of course the Confederacy never got to see how well it worked, with Jeff Davis defeated and captured four years into his term.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
Goodness. It appears history professors sure are well paid. (dirty money laundering SOB)
More intriguing to me is the Nebraska system of a unicameral legislature. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the idea, especially on the federal level (but hey then the 17thers wouldn't have a issue once the eeeeeeeeeeeeevil popularly elected Senate was abolished!), but I could see a unicamerial legislature working for some states like Delaware and the Dakotas.
I think in the hypothetical scenario that the Confederacy had still existed 6 years into Davis' term, what would have likely happened is the Confederate Congress would have passed legislation to grant him an "emergency extension" of his term. Had the confederacy still existed in 1866, they wouldn't have had the infrastructure to hold national elections for Presidency, nor would a transition of power to a new President be a good idea if they wanted to stabilize the new country. Similarly, the confederate constitution called for the establishment of a Supreme Court, but Davis' never appointed any judges and no court was convened during the entire five years of the war.
most of the amendments were progressive bs anyway. repeal all of them. see what happens to the progressive/socialists movement. we don’t need the first ten either because as a human being the rights in the bill are granted by god and as a government of the people cannot be abridged. Slavery was not required by the constitution and no amendment was needed to eliminated it. act of congress would have been sufficient.
LBJ was only elected president once. While he may have served more than 4 years, he only served one term, and refused to run for re-election (a second term).
No thanks.
FDR died at 63 and looked a decade or two older. Getting to serve as many terms as you can win: Not as much fun as it sounds.
Sounds good to me.
“Reward our friends,punish our enemies”. Sorry bad idea. Term limits reduce the amount of damage an ideologue can do
Get prepared for “Emergency Measures”. Once the race riots start and martial law is declared, he can stay in office.
This has been the goal all along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.