I just learned about this in Goverment class. No, I dont think that it should be changed or repealed. If it was, we might end up a dictatorship, or worse...we could end up with another Hilter. He was elected to be Chancellor of Germany and look what happened because of it.
I think it's fine the way it is. If Franklin Roosevelt hadn't died during his fourth term, no telling how long he would have been in office.
And it doesn't surprise me one bit that Bill Clinton would casually mention it. He's a lot younger now, as an ex-president, than many who were in office.
Posts: 3476 | Location: Colfax, WA--the home of the world's largest chain-saw sculpture!! | Registered: 06-03-02
Yes, it should be repealed. The arguments made so far are bogus. If you have a good candidate who is doing a good job, why throw that all away on a technicality?
How will allowing someone to be President more than 2 times be any more likely to give the US a 'Hitler' any more than if that person were President only once? A dictator will not wait until a 3rd term.
You still get to re-elect every 4 years unless, somehow, the constitution is changed and elections are outlawed or indefinitely postponed. Changing the Constitution is not an easy thing to do, which is why recent incumbents use legislation to effectively change the Constitution (for recent example, see USA PATRIOT Act).
Posts: 509 | Location: Australia | Registered: 02-19-03
I don't think there should be a limit. If the president is doing a terrible job, don't re-elect him. It's that simple. If he IS doing a good job, but has served his two terms, then we end up voting for a gaggle of morons where there is no good choice.
I agree with Adi, a dictator will not wait until a 3rd term. We have current legislative proof of that...
Posts: 4394 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
We have a gaggle of morons running anyhow. With the population of this country we are hardly strapped for qualified candidates though. The thing is to get them to run. A former president with specific info or a relationship with certain other leaders can always be called on to assist.
The problem with saying don't re-elect is that incumbancy is a powerful asvantage. And voters tend to be stupid voting by name recognition or party affiliation.
Posts: 2216 | Location: central fl. | Registered: 06-03-02
I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the people who would like the 22nd Amendment repealed, come down on that side of the position due to the possibility that Bill Clinton could still be the president. However, they forget one thing: Bill Clinton would have never been the president, because Ronald Reagan would still be the president. In other words, don't just think about the president you like and how the 22nd Amendment can stifle them, but rather think about the president that you don't like, and how the 22nd Amendment can prevent that person from making your life miserable.
Another thing is that many people who might want the 22nd Amendment repealed will usually also be the same people who so vehemently espouse the concept of diversity. Yet they apparently don’t want the framework of our election process set up to encourage diversity, but rather to actively discourage diversity due to the inherently high incumbent re-election rate.
In a Utopian Society there would be no reason for the 22nd Amendment. In a Utopian Society voters would continue to vote in a variety of different qualified people to the Office of President. In a Utopian Society there would be no need for any laws or a Constitution whatsoever. In a Utopian Society we wouldn't even need the First Amendment to prevent the government from banning our free speech. But we don’t live in a Utopian Society. Some laws to reign in government are necessary.
The 22nd Amendment helps assure that no one person can have nearly unlimited power. With an over 95% re-election rate of incumbents (in Utopia that wouldn’t happen!), the 22nd Amendment is just one of the many safeguards to keep government in check.
>> The 22nd Amendment helps assure that no one person can have nearly unlimited power. With an over 95% re-election rate of incumbents (in Utopia that wouldn’t happen!), the 22nd Amendment is just one of the many safeguards to keep government in check. <<
B.S. - it's the opposite. From your description, it's a law to protect Americans from themselves. It's big government. What you're saying is that the American people are too stupid to elect their own leader.
Posts: 509 | Location: Australia | Registered: 02-19-03
quote:Originally posted by Adi: What you're saying is that the American people are too stupid to elect their own leader.
For the record, I think many American voters are stupid (more accurately naïve) in their voting habits.
And since the incumbent politicians use their political power to transfer money from hard working Americans to these naïve voters to continue to buy their votes, then the 22nd Amendment is a type of “circuit breaker” that would kick in to prevent an incumbent president from continuing to use his power to rig the system and control those naïve voters and buy votes. Those on the left are always talking about “leveling the playing field.” Well let me tell you something: There ain’t noting more crooked than the way incumbent politicians now control elections and buy votes!
On nearly any other issue that affects just them, the American people can and should have the right to continue to make bad, dumb, stupid and naïve choices. But when their action of voting in the same power hungry politician over and over and over affects others, then a case can be made for limiting the terms of politicians. Just as I can’t drive down the highway as fast as I possibly can because of other people on the road, there are speed limit laws. That’s a legitimate balance of rights with a limit that allows the rights of both sides (me and other drivers) to share the road in a relitively safe manner. Since a person’s vote for a politician does affect every other Citizen, then that right can and should have limits on it. And a 2-term limit is a reasonable compromise.
Bill Clinton’s stated “rational” for abolishing the 22nd Amendment is based on the increasing human life span! What? Give me a break! This time I think he's inhaled way too much! Clinton’s only desire to abolish the 22nd Amendment is due to his unquenchable thirst for power – that and he probably saw a cute teenage intern who currently works in the Bush White House that he wants to violate.
The best way to realize that abolishing the 22nd Amendment is a bad idea is to know that Bill Clinton thinks it is a good idea!
No, I dont think that it should be changed or repealed. If it was, we might end up a dictatorship, or worse...we could end up with another Hilter. He was elected to be Chancellor of Germany and look what happened because of it.
In other words, don't just think about the president you like and how the 22nd Amendment can stifle them, but rather think about the president that you don't like, and how the 22nd Amendment can prevent that person from making your life miserable. 
