Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should Presidents Be Allowed To Serve More Than 2 Terms?
World Net Daily ^ | October 8, 2006 | WND

Posted on 10/08/2006 11:22:08 AM PDT by janetgreen

Bills introduced in Congress to repeal 8-year restriction of 22nd Amendment

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.

If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 22ndamendment; amendmentrepeal; berman; hillary; hoyer; sensenbrenner; serrano; twotermsareenough
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: janetgreen

No. The same should go for the Senate and the House. Two term max.!


61 posted on 10/08/2006 12:38:43 PM PDT by Cobra64 (Why is the War on Terror being managed by the DEFENSE Department?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
Congressmen oppose "arbitrary" term limits? No surprise there.

But they don't look at the other side of the coin: what happens when a politician comes to view himself or herself as "indispensable" and doesn't bother preparing the next generation for leadership? Is there something to be said for getting out of the way while you're still more or less effective -- before you cause problems?

62 posted on 10/08/2006 12:42:52 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oyez
"FDR provided some spectacular leadership at times in his tenure, he did not have the psychical strength to be a leading factor in the Yalta Conference."

He allowed 100 million Christians to be under the communists who are as bad as other socialists.
He gave us the ponzi scheme SS. His policy extended the depression to gain power.
63 posted on 10/08/2006 12:42:59 PM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: x
Is there something to be said for getting out of the way while you're still more or less effective -- before you cause problems?

Of course, but ego-driven politicians, just like ego-driven athletes, hate to put themselves out of the spotlight, no matter the price.

64 posted on 10/08/2006 12:44:46 PM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

You should have read further. The article clarifies that it would only be the first step to repealing the amendment.


65 posted on 10/08/2006 12:48:46 PM PDT by Melas (Offending stupid people since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
I don't like term limits because we stand to lose good leaders in an effort to oust poor leaders. If an amendment were embraced and ratified I'd prefer it stated a person cannot be elected to an office they have held without attaining a 5% increase in the popular votes, since the last election, for the office they seek.

This would force office holders to work more diligently for the constituency of the office they seek to retain.

FDR would not have been reelected to a third of fourth term if such a law had existed. In fact, he would not have been reelected to a second term! 1932 = 57.4%; 1936 = 60.6%; 1940 = 54.7%; 1944 = 53.4%. In contrast, Reagan enjoyed an 8% increase in popular votes in 1984 results over the 1980 election results.

If a change comes, make it a change that forces office holders to increase their performance for the constituency served, not simply occupy an office for a length of time.
66 posted on 10/08/2006 12:52:29 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen

No.


67 posted on 10/08/2006 12:52:47 PM PDT by rintense (Liberals stand for nothing and are against everything- unless it benefits them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
I know the article said this was the first step. What I am objecting to is the use of the word "repeal." Congress CAN repeal any law, that Congress passed in the first place. Congress can never repeal any Constitutional provision.

This point is so basic that no writer on national politics should ever get it wrong. And if the writer is to ignorant to get it right, the editor ought to know better. John / Billybob

68 posted on 10/08/2006 12:54:12 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Have a look-see. Please get involved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
No because this would allow the NEXT Clinton-type President to stay forever.

Had the amendment NOT been in effect in 2000, We'd probably still have BJ.

That said, I do think that FDR was an aberration and wouldn't be the norm for the number of terms by a President.
69 posted on 10/08/2006 12:54:19 PM PDT by MikefromOhio ("...America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

Hi Victoria. Glad to see you online! Nothing like a little Constitutional pondering to make your Sunday ;-)


70 posted on 10/08/2006 12:57:32 PM PDT by DakotaGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
Not just no, **** NO! The only thing that got that idiot kkklintooon out was the 22nd Amendment. If you got rid of that the women would make him president for life.
71 posted on 10/08/2006 1:02:56 PM PDT by LibKill (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

While your suggestion is amusing, it has an obvious flaw: The more popular the president during his/her first election, the poorer his/her chances would be to win a second term.

A President Clinton, elected in a three way race with a popular vote in the low 40's could easily pick up 5% for a second election. By contrast, it would be next to impossible for a popular president with 65% to pick up an additional 5% to make 70.


72 posted on 10/08/2006 1:03:41 PM PDT by Melas (Offending stupid people since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
The change I would make is for Supreme Court Justices to be nominated for 18 year terms, and each 4-year Presidency gets two (plus replacing for term remainders any who die or resign). And nothing to prevent a sitting President from renominating a justice with an expiring term. Chief could simply be the one with the most seniority, which would tend to rotate every two years.
73 posted on 10/08/2006 1:06:44 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
No.
Nein.
Nyet.
Non.
Nay.
Nope.
Uh uh.
Not.
Negative.

Get the picture?

With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, I wouldn't even want the same REPUBLICAN president for more than 8 years. The damage a Democrat could do in that time is incalculable. It will take a lifetime to purge Clinton's stain. Imagine if he had another term!

The mind boggles ...

74 posted on 10/08/2006 1:32:30 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen

Exactly.


75 posted on 10/08/2006 1:33:51 PM PDT by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
The mind boggles ...

I agree - it also boggles the mind wondering why Sensenbrenner wants this.

76 posted on 10/08/2006 1:34:56 PM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen

No.

If anything, limit them ALL to two terms.

They forget who they work for.


77 posted on 10/08/2006 1:36:03 PM PDT by Nickname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
I'd like to see the 14th Amendment revisited or defined for the use it was originally intended. Illegals "Anchor" babies are born out of fraud..

Oh, HELL NOT, to a third term..groan.

sw

78 posted on 10/08/2006 1:40:26 PM PDT by spectre (Spectre's wife)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Washington was not "term limited", he set the two term standard which was followed as tradition until somebody went and screwed with that in the 20th century. The most amazing thing that Washington did in his entire presidency, which changed the rules and set the bar high for all following leaders was to voluntarily give up power.
79 posted on 10/08/2006 1:42:47 PM PDT by Uriah_lost (M.I.E. Mainer In Exile I'll come back when the Massholes go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
A one-term limit would be best.
One six-year term.

Great idea Mr. Mojo, why limit it to the President? Lets shoot for one term Senators too. We are too close to having a permanent ruling class as things stand today.

Regards,
GtG

80 posted on 10/08/2006 1:49:15 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson