The 22nd Amendment: A Good Thing Or A Bad Thing?

[arwalden]

Below is the wording to the 22nd Amendment that limits the President of the United States to 2 terms in office.

But not for this Amendment, we might have had Clinton as our president still! But then again... can you imagine what might happen if Bush* managed to steal 3 or 4 elections in a row?

-- Allen



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.

[immoderate]

1. I don't like it, but...

I didn't like the designated hitter rule either.

It's a limit on democracy.

--IMM

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. FDR was elected 4 times.

When the country was more sensible.

However, term limits, no foreign born, etc, put limits on the peoples' right to elect who they may want for the job.

[Warpy]

3. Then again, we might have had Reagan until he croaked

and they had to bury him. That amendment cuts both ways, and Reagan, although he was a disaster for working people, made people feel really good about being robbed blind.

[carnie_sf]

4. As I understand it

this amendment was put in place because repukes were so pissed about FDR.

[TahitiNut]

5. It's a symptom of an electorate that's increasingly ill-informed ...

... and unskilled at critical thinking. Indeed, I viewed it as a condemnation ... a heavy-handed way of saying that people are incapable of making the best choices.

I've been an advocate of more systemic 'fixes' to term limits. I believe it would be more than sufficient and beneficial in more ways than one to prohibit any elected or appointed office-holder to engage in any kind of fund-raising, whether for charity, for their own campaigns, or for the campaigns of any other politician. I would regard that as an 'employment contract' akin to the employment contracts and personal service contracts of various CEOs and COOs.

The basic concern is the power of an incumbent politician to exchange favors for funds. Fine. Criminalize any fund-raising activities of any kind for an incumbent, whether running for reelection for their current office or any other. Fuck 'em.

Just think about the enormous number of fund-raising appearances that Smirk made in the last four years! Not a single week went by that he wasn't whoring for money.

[tom_paine]

6. A very good thing to codify the tradition of Washington, Grant & T Rooseve

lt.

And although it hasn't kept us from degenarting into a Hereditary, Oligarchic Orwellian Empire, it makes me smile to think our Amerikan Caesers are going to have to change Emperors every 8 years (and perhaps allow one not named Bush) in deference to their Myth of a Free Country in Imperial Amerika.

No, the 22nd Amendment is a VERY good thing, and really was a tradition with our nation since Washington refused the Crown.

FDR may have won all those elections because he knew what the rest of us didn't at the time.

Which was that the Busheviks of the 1930s tried to have him Hindenberged and God bless Gen Smedley Butler for turning those Bushevik bastards in when they offered him the Hitler role!

Perhaps FDR maintained control unto his death because he more than anyone else knew the Dark Specter of Bushevikism that threatened America then.

But the 22nd Amendment...no that is VERY GOOD.

[BoX o BooX]

9. Minor point, Thom:

TR later rejected the tradition, and ran as a candidate in 1912 as the head of the Progressive ("Bull Moose") party.

On the whole though, I am ambivalent. A good case can be made for each view on this topic.

[Sporadicus]

7. On Balance, I Consider the 22nd Amendment Good for the US

Personally, I would have liked nothing better than a 3rd or 4th term in office for Bill Clinton, but as you pointed out, it leaves open the possibility of indefinite terms in office for despots like * as well.

The 22nd Amendment was passed with FDR in mind, promoted heavily by the repugs in congress. On balance, however, I consider the 22nd Amendment necessary to prevent dictatorships - more likely from the RW than from liberals.

[Dookus]

8. terrible amendment

why limit who we can vote for? It's a brain-dead response to a non-problem.

I'm grateful every day that Americans COULD elect Roosevelt to four terms.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. In the long run, it's good, because of people like the BCE

But just imagine where this country could have been today with a third Clinton term :(

[Raiden]

11. I am glad we have it!

If we didn't have that amendment, Reagan may have been president until he died. That would mean no Bill Clinton!

[jcappy]

12. Good becuz Heroic Ideal Sucks

We don't need stars but rather a truly inclusive political party--one everyone can work for and in. One that stands behind peace, social justice, and the environment--the head of such a party is merely our representative and no more, so can be replaced fairly often.

[Shadowen]

13. It is good, for the most part.

It limits power.