The famous term limit for the president had been, up to the ratification of this amendment, merely a precedent that was set mostly out of following the first few presidents' footsteps. And then came the era of FDR, who was elected to four terms (though he died before serving the fourth). The republicans at the time decided that passing this would be a way to invalidate his reign.
Article:
No More Second-Term Blues
By JAMES MacGREGOR BURNS and SUSAN DUNN
Published: January 5, 2006
Williamstown, Mass.
AS George W. Bush's leadership flounders a little more than a year after his re-election, we are seeing a return of an old affliction in American politics, "second termitis." The protracted woes of Richard Nixon's Watergate, Ronald Reagan's Iran-contra affair, and Bill Clinton's impeachment were all, in part, manifestations of that malady.
Is there some human failing that affects second-term presidents, like arrogance or sheer fatigue? To some degree, perhaps. But the main problem is not personal but institutional - or rather constitutional, as embodied by the 22nd Amendment limiting presidential tenure.
A second-term president will, in effect, automatically be fired within four years. Inevitably his influence over Congress, and even his authority over the sprawling executive branch, weaken. His party leadership frays as presidential hopefuls carve out their own constituencies for the next election. Whether the president is trying to tamp down scandal or push legislation, he loses his ability to set the agenda.
But whether or not a president has a diminished second term, the amendment barring a third term presents the broader and more serious question of his accountability to the people.
While political commentators analyze every twist in White House politics, while citizens follow dramatic stories of leaks, investigations and indictments, the one person who does not have to care is George W. Bush. In a sense, he has transcended the risks and rewards of American politics. He will not run again for office. The voters will not be able to thank him - or dump him.
And yet accountability to the people is at the heart of a democratic system.
There was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents. That was why Franklin Delano Roosevelt could run again in 1940 and 1944, becoming the only president to serve more than two terms. And that was why, three years later, in 1947, after sporadic public debate, Republicans demanded presidential term limits and changed the Constitution.
With majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans, joined by Southern Democrats opposed to the New Deal, were able to push the 22nd Amendment through the House (after only two hours of debate!) and the Senate (after five days of debate). At the time, an amendment limiting presidents to two terms in office seemed an effective way to invalidate Roosevelt's legacy, to discredit this most progressive of presidents. In the House, one of the few Northern Democrats to vote with the majority was freshman representative John F. Kennedy, whose father had fallen out with Roosevelt. In the spring of 1947, as the historian David Kyvig noted, 18 state legislatures rushed to ratify the amendment, with virtually no public participation in the debate. By 1951, the required three-fourths of the state legislatures had ratified it.
While George Washington limited himself to two terms, it had never been his intention to create a precedent. Washington didn't want to die in office and have the succession appear "monarchical." But his primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquillity of Mount Vernon.
Washington's close confidant Alexander Hamilton also had firmly opposed presidential term limits. In Federalist No. 72, Hamilton argued that term limits for the chief executive would diminish inducements to good behavior, discourage presidents from undertaking bold new projects, deny the nation the advantage of his experience and threaten political stability. For his part, Washington added that term limits would exclude from the presidency a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.
Should presidents - whether George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton - be denied the opportunity to serve their country and carry through their programs? Should they be allowed to govern without any accountability to voters? Should voters be denied two supreme powers - the right to give popular presidents more terms in office and to repudiate a failed president at the polls? "We ought to take a serious look and see if we haven't interfered with the democratic rights of the people," Ronald Reagan said in 1986.
Some defenders of the 22nd Amendment might argue that an incumbent second-term president would have an even more formidable and undeserved advantage in recognition, experience and the prestige of his office today than in the 1940's. But the power of incumbency may actually decrease with time. After his landslide victory for a second term in 1936, Roosevelt saw his popular vote drop in 1940 and even more in 1944.
And what about an unfair head start in campaign fund-raising? Presidential incumbents already have a significant advantage, but not necessarily an overwhelming one, especially with campaign finance reform. In a democratic republic, only the Constitution should trump the will of the majority, not the economic vicissitudes of the campaign trail.
Since 1956, many bipartisan resolutions to repeal the 22nd Amendment have been submitted to Congress - and gone nowhere. The most recent one to be buried in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee was proposed last February. Oddly, both the current chairman of that committee, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, and the former chairman, Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, both Republicans, have in the past co-sponsored resolutions to repeal the amendment.
Hasn't the time come for Congress and the voters to revoke an authoritarian, barely considered amendment? Republicans, who revere "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution and who applaud the rise of the conservative movement, should welcome the possibility of a three- or four-term Republican president, thus avoiding "second termitis."
And Democrats, as they contemplate the century that lies ahead, can hope that in another world crisis, this misbegotten amendment will not be there to bar a future Franklin Roosevelt from offering the kind of leadership that he provided in the 1940's.
Reaction:
This article does a good job of of explaining the reasons behind the passing of the amendment, and also gives a little bit to think about why the amendment might not be a good idea. I definitely understand the idea that term limits make sure that our country isn't a monarchy...however, I also think that they keep presidents from undergoing long-term projects for fear that they might fail once they're out of office (or simply be stopped). I also think that because a president is popular with the people and gets re-elected isn't really much of a good reason to pass an amendment barring his re-election. After all, if the people are happy, isn't that what our government is supposed to be about? Plus if they're not happy, they would simply not vote the same person back in office.
Article:
Lawmakers aim to repeal 22nd Amendment
President George W. Bush for life? Well, not really.
But Democrat Rep. Howard Berman would be willing to let presidents give it their best shot.
The Van Nuys congressman this week teamed up with a small group of lawmakers trying to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms in office.
"I don't like arbitrary term limits," said Berman, who has represented his Van Nuys district since 1982.
"I think our country was better off because Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to run for a fourth term," Berman said. "Imposing an arbitrary limit makes no sense."
Berman's concern about the 22nd Amendment comes at a time of renewed talk in Sacramento over the possibility of loosening legislative term limits as part of a redistricting agreement with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
UCLA School of Law professor Daniel Lowenstein said he finds term limits "destructive," but more so in the state Legislature than at the presidential level.
"Simply the quality of the work that they do is harmed tremendously by term limits," he said of state legislators.
Of the 22nd Amendment, Lowenstein said, "I don't think you can say that presidential term limits, since they were adopted, have had a serious negative effect."
Still, he added, "People should have the opportunity to vote for the person they want to."
Meanwhile, bills by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Long Beach, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and others that would allow Schwarzenegger to one day ascend to the presidency by amending the Constitution to allow non-natural-born U.S. citizens to become president have not seen much political traction this year.
The resolution repealing the 22nd Amendment was introduced by Maryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer and co-sponsored by Berman. It also earned the support of James Sensenbrenner, the conservative Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
The 22nd Amendment repeal, if it passes and is approved by the states, would not go into effect until after the Bush presidency, making him ineligible for multiple consecutive terms.
Berman, a lifelong Democrat, made a point of noting that fact when discussing his support for the amendment's repeal. But he also said even the possibility of another third Bush term would not have caused him to back off the resolution.
"If we can't beat 'em on the third try, then we don't deserve it," he said
Reaction:
Apparently the idea that the amendment should be repealed has been around for awhile. This article comes from the perspective of someone in the house submitting the idea. This article touches on the fact that people should be allowed to vote for who they want, and as long as the power stays with the people, what's there to complain about?
No comments:
Post a Comment