But if the majority of the people want him, so what? Why not let him serve four or five terms? As long as he (or she) continues to serve the people well, they will return him to office. Once the officeholder no longer serves the people in the way they want to be served, they will vote him out.
Zev Steinhardt
Point One: A constitution is not neccessarily just a written document; England has been getting along with one that is based upon, among other things, “precedent” and “custom” for some considerable time now. Indeed, as you will see from looking at the definition at Merriam-Webster OnLine, the concept that it is a written instrument is last in the list of acceptable meanings. There are other examples of things in our constitution not included in our Constitution.
Point Two: Teddy Roosevelt only ran for office twice; his first term was the rump of the McKinley term.
Point Three: The esteemed gentlemen I mentioned may have owned slaves, but most of them weren’t advocates of slavery; they simply found it unadvisable to do business as southern plantation owners without recourse to the economic model of the times. I did not mean to imply that I would agree with the practices of those men simply because “if it worked for them, it works for me!” I meant that the concepts of government they advocated obtain a measure of respect from me sufficient to avoid dismissing them just because I have some sort of urge to do things differently than my forefathers, the sort of unfortunate knee-jerk reaction typical of liberal thinkers… 
There’s more to it than that, Zev. Here’s two examples.
If Bush is around for 12 years, or 16, or longer, imagine what he could do. He could pack the courts, for one. How would you feel if the rights you cherish so greatly were abrogated simply because Congress had literally no choice but to confirm 16 years worth of nominees to judicial positions. The only other choice would be to destroy the judicial system by apathy.
Or for the environmentalists, if Bush were around for that long. Since he gives not one crap about the environment, imagine the damage he could do, especially if he feels emboldened by his near-perpetual re-election.
And yet, if he continues to get the Electoral College vote, or even a minimal majority, these things could come to pass.
That they can’t is due to the 22nd Amendment.
**
Firstly, if the people are electing the president over and over again, and they know that he has the ability to appoint judges, then obviously that’s OK with the electorate.
Secondly, the Senate does not have “no choice but to confirm.” The Senate certainly has it in their power to reject a choice they find unsuitable.
**
First, cite please that Bush “gives not one crap about the environment.”
Secondly, again, that’s up to the electorate. If the electorate feels that the environment is a strong enough issue and that the current officeholder is not doing enough for the environment, then it’s up to the electorate to turn him out.
Zev Steinhardt
**
I understand your point. But we still don’t have an “unwritten Constitution” in the U.S. You cannot quote it in law arguments before a court and you cannot charge the President, a Senator or a general with violating it. All Roosevelt did was break with a tradition (which his cousin already broke – see below)
**
True. But we’re not arguing the concept of running more than twice, we’re arguing the concept of serving more than twice. No one argued with Cleveland when he ran a third time, because he only served once. TR is generally considered to be a two-term president, even though his first term was only 2.5 years. Had the 22nd been in force in 1901, he would have been prevented from running again.
Zev Steinhardt
Of the three dictators mentioned, only Hitler can be accurately said to have come to power by means of democratic elections.
Mussolini came to power in what amounted to a coup d’etat; his followers marched on Rome, and the King felt compelled to appoint Mussolini Prime Minister (from which position, backed by his extralegal goon squads, Mussolini made himself arbitrary dictator or duce–“leader”). Although Mussolini’s seizure of power may arguably have been “legal” in the context of a constitutional monarchy–the King “requested” that he form a government–it did not involve winning a “democratic election”.
Stalin came to power by means of political maneuvering and bureaucratic skullduggery within the Communist Party. He initially held power solely as General Secretary of the Communist Party, an institution whose membership never consisted of more than a minority of the people of the USSR (and of course even within the CPSU it’s not like he won some kind of fair party election against Trotsky or anything like that). It wasn’t until after he had been in power for nearly 20 years that he bothered to assume a “state” office, as premier. I’m sure that there were later “elections” after that point wherein the people of the Soviet Union “elected” the “Great Leader and Teacher” to another term as premier by votes of 170,319,127 to 0, but he did not come to power by even pseudo-democratic elections.
Another “anti term limits” argument I didn’t see mentioned is the lame duck factor. The current president has no real need to make the people happy his second term because he doesn’t have to, they’ll be gone reguardless in a few years.
See Clinton’s last minute pardons.
Point #1 is an interesting thought. I can see that this might tilt the balance of power a bit. Keep in mind, though, that there is a long tradition in the US of having congress controlled by the party which is not in control of the White House. The current situation is pretty unusual. Even still, look how hard a time Bush is having in getting even lower court judges approved. Also, Supreme Court judges are often quite independent and can sometimes surprise people on who they actually turn out.
I don’t understand point #2. I’m assuming you are using the “environmental issue” as a complete hypothetical, but so what? While the constitution protects the minority from the majority in terms of protecting rights, it does not guarantee the minority to have their agenda become the law of the land.
I find this an interesting comment:
Limiting the number of consecutive terms will at least get some new blood in the office, and prevent the incumbent from monopolizing the office long term. It will also allow that skilled president to come back into office so that we can have the benefit of his leadership.
What I was referring to is something like this:
Doesn’t matter who’s in charge. If the Republicans are in charge, then they can continue to force guys like Estrada down the Democrats’ throats. No big surprise there, that’s just business as usual.
Now, if the Democrats are in charge, what happens if Bush continues to nominate conservatives and they keep getting rejected? Judges are going to retire and their slots need to be filled. So what are they gonna do? Reject every single judicial nominee for sixteen years? What do you think will happen then? Admittedly, this is unlikely, actually impossible, because the opposition party has a shot every four years at the White House. But if the Pesident is absurdly popular and the oppostion doesn’t have a legitimate shot, then that situation can occur in perpetuity. Except for, of course, the 22nd Amendment.
You’re right, the majority has the right to set the agenda. And as a result of the 22nd Amendment, the majority, and thus the agenda, changes, balancing the situation.
It all depends on who’s ox is being gored. All the Democrats getting misty over the idea of a third term for Clinton would be apoplectic about the idea of a third term for Bush. And vice versa.
Personally, I don’t think the 22nd Amendment is that big a blight on our constitution. The reality is that after 200 years of presidential elections the only two people it would have applied to are FDR and Bill Clinton. Every other president either stepped down voluntarily, left under a cloud, retired due to ill health, or were voted down (in the case of Teddy Roosevelt). Sure the 22nd is a little bit anti-democratic, but is that such a crime? We have plenty of anti-democratic measures in our constitution…the Senate, the electoral college, the Bill of Rights. Think about it. The First amendment restricts democracy by preventing the people from exercising their sovreign right to institute a state religion if 51% of them so chose.
**
Wrong. I stated openly very early in this thread that even though I am by no means a Clinton supporter, I’d support a revocation of 22 even if it meant a third Clinton term.
**
In a nation that holds itself out as the model of democracy and which was founded on democratic principles, I’d say yeah, it’s a “crime.”
That’s because there are certain principles that trump even democracy in our country. Freedom of religion is one. But that doesn’t mean that democracy isn’t important. I’d favor removing the possibility of “tyranny of the majority” for the sake of the important concept of freedom of religion. I don’t think it’s a good trade-off for simply keeping someone out of office.
Zev Steinhardt
There are two bills in Congress now. This is not just a mental exercise.
There are two bills in Congress now. This is not just a mental exercise.
Now THIS is what I call a thread. Slight hijack (but still relevant), for you Douglas Adams fans (from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, ch. 28):
"The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Thought that we could use a little comic relief at this point. As for the discussion at hand, I don’t really have anything to say that hasn’t already been said by those more articulate and informed than me. Good thread.
Now THIS is what I call a thread. Slight hijack (but still relevant), for you Douglas Adams fans (from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, ch. 28):
"The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Thought that we could use a little comic relief at this point. As for the discussion at hand, I don’t really have anything to say that hasn’t already been said by those more articulate and informed than me. Good thread.
Crap, sorry about that, folks. I didn’t think the first one went through. The second one has the proper italics, though. I’m an idiot.
"Sure the 22nd is a little bit anti-democratic, but is that such a crime? "
How is this really different from the req’t that the president be 35 yrs old, as I noted earlier? Isn’t that equally undemocratic? I think it is not unreasonable to say that the constitution can set rules for elections, and this is just one of them.
I’m with Lemur. I’d preffer not to have the 22nd ammendment, but it’s WAY down on the bottom of my list of things to change.
Actually, I concur with this. There are excpetions, but I think we all knew the kids in high school how wanted to be the hall monitors and class presidents. Not the ones I’d prefer to have running things, but that’s the way it is.
Here’s a slight hijack. In thinking about this whole 22nd ammendment, it got me also thinking about what it tells us about our presidents. This will drive the Reagan bashers nuts, but it’s clear that he was the most successful presidents since FDR. He’s the only president since the 22nd ammendment was passed to serve 2 successive terms and to be followed by a president of the same party. What a ringing endorsment by the American electorate! And he had enough class to have never said, to my knowledge, or seriously implied that he shoud’ve been able to run again.
Truman (D)
Truman (D)
Ike ®
Ike ®
JFK/LBJ (D)
LBJ (D)
Nixon ®
Nixon/Ford ®
Carter (D)
Reagan ®
Reagan ®
Bush I ®
Clinton (D)
Clinton (D)
Bush II ®
Careful now. Before FDR, it was a strong tradition that no President would run for more terms than Washington served (2). It’s dubious to say any “stepped down voluntarily” when they knew they’d have to face serious static from the voters for it, and “under a cloud” is a decision best left to the electorate (who hasn’t had a “cloud” of some sort over him?). Teddy Roosevelt came to regret his decision and ran again later, for instance. Even with the 22nd in place, it seems plausible that Eisenhower could have won a third term, perhaps Reagan as well.
But I go along with the Dopers’ consensus that term limits are philosophically bad, especially if there are no matching limits on both the executive and legislative sides. If someone is thought by the electorate to be doing the job they want him to do, and well, why not keep him in it?