Is the 22nd amendment antiquated?

[yodoobo]

As we get ready to elect a leader, who will no doubt be one of our greatest Presidents ever to lead this nation and will probably grow into one of the greatest world leaders of all time - isn't it time to rethink the 22nd amendment?

This was passed a very long time ago and much has changed since then. Information is much more readily available and people should be entitled to make a decision to keep a great president.

Indeed, does anyone think the Bush would have even the slightest chance of being re-elected this year?

Without the 22nd amendment, does anyone think that Bush would have even stood a chance to take the Whitehouse from Clinton?

Seems to me the 22nd amendment only limits how long fantastic presidents can serve, while doing nothing to shorten the terms of bad presidents.

Perhaps an amendment that removes the two term limitation, but allows the recall of the president at anytime ?

Now that we have the White house, and majorities in the House and Senate, I think we should strike while the iron is hot.

[Renew Deal]

1. I'm sure you would have liked having Reagan in office for 12-16 years

:shrug:

[yodoobo]

11. We essentially did get Reagan/Bush for 20 years though

thats the thing, it doesn't even work.

We had 8 years of Reagan/Bush, then 4 years of Bush, and another 8 year of Bush.

The 22nd amendment is not even living up to the promises.

I understand the counter-arguments, but it seems like to does little to stop evil and alot of stop greatness.

[billyoc]

2. No.

[JFN1]

3. God, no!

The 22nd protects us from the Bush/McCain types out there. And while three or more terms for a President like Obama, or even Bill Clinton, would be fantastic, it would be terrible for us if someone like Bush was offered more than two terms.

What an unmitigated disaster that would be, if Bush was eligible again this year! Let's keep the 22nd in force!!

[yodoobo]

8. Theres no way that Bush would win this year though

no way in absolute hell.

Heck Mccain is doing everything he can do get the stinch of Bush off of him.

Bush wasn't even invited to his own convention.

[JFN1]

9. We don't know that

If Bush was able to have a third or fourth term, the Republican sleaze machine would have been in full force for the last two years, and we cannot know what that would have meant for this election.

[Uben]

4. No

Eight years is enough. If the party in power can't get it done, it's time for change. If they do, they have nothing to worry about.

[hedgehog]

5. I'm wondering if it's time to get an amendment to move up the Inaugural.

It won't change things this time around, of course, but the next 2 1/2 months are going to be almost as tough to get through as this last week!

[yodoobo]

13. Yes I'm concerned about what Bush will do in those 2.5 months

hopefully he'll just be drinking.

[Fovea]

17. buzz cut hookrboyz, whiskey and blow

I think his tastes run in that direction.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. With a president who is young enough to serve 4 terms, it would be tempting.

Let's get rid of the fraud machines and the DLC first though.

[onenote]

7. " a very long time ago"??

The twenty second amendment was ratified in 1951 -- two years before I was born. So I guess you think I was born a "very long time ago".


And it doesn't matter that we will have majorities in the House and Senate -- there is no way such an amendment gets through the state legislatures.

[Idealism]

18. Lets look at this practically speaking

like onenote did.

remember, to amend the constitution you need it to get passed by state legislatures, and 2/3rd congress :/

[hootinholler]

25. Well you were 12 when I was born...

And my kids ask me about the olden days.

:rofl:

I rekon you're older than dirt then.

-Hoot

[onenote]

26. Actually, I think the term is "antiquated." I'm "antiquated."

:bounce:

[yodoobo]

27. no offense intended

Just saying that times were a bit different in the era that this was passed.

[Muttocracy]

10. Nope - as long as you can keep the party and platform as long as needed, it's fine. No royalty. nt

[dugaresa]

12. No need to amend it at all. 2 Terms is plenty

[brendan120678]

14. Are you for real?

Repealing that Amendment would be a bad idea.

Sure, "great Presidents," as you say, would be limited - which would in the end only hurt the American people.
However, fascist Presidents, like Bushie, would do whatever they could - including stealing more votes - in order to stay in power. And that would be even more harmful.

Which would you rather see - a great President Obama having to leave after only two terms; or 12, 16 or even 20 years of President George W. Bush?

[FiveGoodMen]

15. No. We still need it.

Other term limits -- maybe not. But the White House -- definitely.

[Donnachaidh]

16. HELL no.

And that argument of an amendment being *antiquated* smacks a great deal like the utter garbage Bush and his cronies have been saying about the Constitution.

[iamahaingttta]

19. No.

The 22nd amendment is fine.
8 years is enough.
I expect President Obama to be the best president of my lifetime, and 8 years will be enough for him.

[cobalt1999]

20. In a country this size, there are plenty of great candidates.

No such thing as only one person who can do the job. 2 terms is long enough.

[suston96]

21. The Twenty Second Amendment was passed by a Republican Congress......

...and ratified by numerous Republican legislatures in 1951, and was considered by historians as an "act of retrospective vengeance against Franklin Delano Roosevelt" (That from Arthur Schlesinger).

Until Roosevelt, all two term Presidents had honored the voluntary tradition of not running for a third term. But Roosevelt, who had led the country during the great depression, was prevailed upon by both the Democratic party and the people to stay in office, with the clouds of war on the horizon.

That Amendment, like all term limits has nothing to do with stopping incumbents. It is a violation of the people's voting rights and specifically the right of the people to elect their leaders.

It is a blight on our Constitution as the only negative directed at limiting the power of the people and not the power of the government.

Shame on the people for continuing to validate an act of vengeance against a dead President and against themselves.

For it was the people who elected Roosevelt four times as President.

[cobalt1999]

24. I don't care who passed it or their motivations.

It's still a great idea.

* Also, a major of Americans must have agreed at the time too since a congress alone doesn't have the power to amend the constitution *

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. Nope. We don't need no Castros, Kim Jong Ils, or other monarchical types.

Two terms is plenty.

The presidential position needs new blood constantly flowing in and out.

The 22nd protects the office, and it also protects us from ourselves.

[Posteritatis]

28. If you don't need them, don't elect them (nt)

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. Wow - that comment added a lot to the dialogue.

What's next - "These colors don't bleed" or "freedom isn't free"?

Talk about missing the point entirely, and then responding with a meaningless, empty phrase.

[4lbs]

23. We already have precedent. Remember Bloomberg is running for a 3rd term, after the NYC council

struck down that term limit law.

We'll see if he gets that 3rd term, and if so, how it turns out.

[TahitiNut]

29. One might argue that without the 22nd we'd have seen impeachment and removal.

It'd be a good point to make. Further, I must wonder whether folks would've been as willing to vote for Junior in 2004. I have to believe that the 2-term limit make folks a bit more reckless on reelection.


:shrug:

[GoneOffShore]

31. Here's another thought - make the Presidential term 6 yrs with a 2 yr extension,

renewable for another 2.

And have Representatives serve 3 year terms with a maximum of 2 terms.

Senators keep the 6 year term, but max them out at 2 terms.