You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
End Presidential Term Limits
2013-11-29
I suppose the author means by Congress, and three-fourths of the States, not by executive fiat.
In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. "The executive's effectiveness will be seriously impaired," Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, " as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again."
Why, he'd be a lame duck!
I've been thinking about Kilgore's comments as I watch President Obama, whose approval rating has dipped to 37 percent in CBS News polling -- the lowest ever for him -- during the troubled rollout of his health-care reform. Many of Obama's fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president. Even former president Bill Clinton has said that Americans should be allowed to keep the health insurance they have.
Clearly, he needs a third term to enact his progressive agenda!
Or consider the reaction to the Iran nuclear deal. Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?
After all, those guys couldn't possibly think it's a bad deal - they're Democrats!
Probably not. 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.
If they're not brain dead, they fear The Chicago Way, whether Champ is one term or el Presidente for Life.
Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he 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?
Whoa. Somebody help me out here. Is this cognitive dissonance, or just academic stoopidity?
Those aren't mutually exclusive...
The first president to openly challenge the two-term tradition was Theodore Roosevelt, who ran for a third term as president in 1912 on the Bull Moose ticket. When he stepped down in 1908, Roosevelt pledged not to seek a third term; reminded of this promise in 1912, he said that he had meant he would not seek a "third consecutive term." The New York Times called Roosevelt's explanation a "pitiful sophistication," and the voters sent Woodrow Wilson to the White House.
In retrospect, clearly a bad omen.
Citing the outbreak of war overseas and the Depression at home, Democrats renominated Franklin D. Roosevelt. They pegged him for a fourth time in 1944 despite his health problems, which were serious enough to send him to his grave the following year.

To Republicans, these developments echoed the fascist trends enveloping Europe. "You will be serving under an American totalitarian government before the long third term is finished," warned Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt's opponent in 1940. Once the two-term tradition was broken, Wilkie added, nobody could put it back together. "If this principle dies, it will be dead forever," he said.
So let's kill it in 2013!
That's why the GOP moved to codify it in the Constitution in 1947, when a large Republican majority took over Congress. Ratified by the states in 1951, the 22nd Amendment was an "undisguised slap at the memory of Franklin D. Roosevelt," wrote Clinton Rossiter, one of the era's leading political scientists. It also reflected "a shocking lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the people," Rossiter said.
Ratified by three-fourths of the states, right? I bet the elitists hated that.
He was right. Every Republican in Congress voted for the amendment, while its handful of Democratic supporters were mostly legislators who had broken with FDR and his New Deal. When they succeeded in limiting the presidency to two terms, they limited democracy itself.
That's right, bozo, they kept it a Republic!
"I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny," Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947.
And the people spoke, Claude, in 1952, when they ratified the 22nd amendment, memorializing FDR, not "slapping" his memory.
"We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?"

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.
Were you cheering for it then, Professor?
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.
Hoping he could steal the election again?
Jonathan Zimmerman is a professor of history and education at New York University. His books include "Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory."
Posted by:Bobby

#11  Screw term limits. These guys will just decalre a monarchy, regime or dictatorship and you wil learn to live with it.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2013-11-29 22:13  

#10  Just for a gedanker thing, imagine a dropping of term limits and Bill being able to run. Think of the damn Democratic primaries! I would re-engage just for the damn hell of it. Think of Hillary under the largest damn bus you have ever seen in your nightmares....
Posted by: Shipman   2013-11-29 18:15  

#9  Actually, if it weren't for term.limits, Bill Clinton might have gone for extra terms.

Of course, if I could take over for one day, the first thing I would do is institute term limits for Congress. With no grandfather clause.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2013-11-29 16:50  

#8  Bill Clinton approves.
Posted by: Shipman   2013-11-29 14:37  

#7  File under I pray I'm wrong.
Vast allegations of fraud occur during the next election. Obama declares it a "Constitutional Crisis", A state of Emergency for our democracy and Stops the elections for DOJ to investigate. Both sides go to court. Investigation is partisan and finds fraud only on one side. They go after the right and Tea Party. More legal action. The only viable way is to register voters, ACLU has a stroke and files in every courthouse clogging the system. IRS goes after every republican on the accusation list bankrupting the republican party. Finally three years later the issue is resolved. The president decides to stay in power until the next election cycle, calls it a state of emergency action to restore democracy. The country is just as divided and riots.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2013-11-29 14:16  

#6  When is Krystalnacht scheduled? I'm expecting some pretext, domestic or foreign, for this criminal claque to try a "martial law(less" decree.

When that happens the republic will have fallen and the minutemen will have to march again.
Posted by: AlanC   2013-11-29 14:13  

#5  "The Shape of Things to Come" if the left has its way ?

Posted by: Au Auric   2013-11-29 13:26  

#4  Testing, testing.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2013-11-29 13:16  

#3  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.

Not only no but hell no. The current crop of lefties would like nothing better than to elect a basically incompetent who aspires to an executive branch dictatorship. The 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress and by the required number of States. It is a part of the Constitution. Those on the left are not fond of our Constitution but the people of our Republic have spoken.
Posted by: JohnQC   2013-11-29 12:34  

#2  Strange why these Lefties never brought this up when Reagen was in his second term. /sarc off

Note Well - it was a Constitutional amendment which required a super majority to submit and ratify. For a political movement that must employ widespread deception and corruption to just get a mere majority to sustain its existing power, the only means they have to overcome the process is by fiat. At which time, there is no law but power.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2013-11-29 11:42  

#1  Another attempt by Obama to stay, no matter who proposes it, you can be sure the goal is to extend Obama in office.

Won't work.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2013-11-29 11:04  

00:00