Nice dodge there re the 2000 hijack - “to be followed by”, huh? Think nobody’d notice?
Toward the end, when Nancy’s astrologer was giving the directions, he wasn’t saying much of anything at all.
Try again, and with less worshipful awe in your voice.
**
No, it’s not equally undemocratic.
Just because we are a democracy (or, more accurately, a democratic republic), that doesn’t mean that we have to allow every yahoo on the ballot. Sometimes there are valid reasons for not allowing a person on the ballot, or for requiring certain conditions be met before a person is allowed on to the ballot. This ammendment (and other term-limits laws like it) are a punative measure (to the candidate) that penalizes the candidate for serving his office.
**
I agree that it’s not the most pressing issue in the world (as it only currently affects two people in the world, and one of them is too ill to run for President again anyway).
Zev Steinhardt
Thanks for the links.
I’m interested in seeing the legs this has. Given the state legislatures being more Republican in recent years, it’s not a given that it would pass. It might not (probably won’t) pass the HoR, much less ever get to the states.
Bill Clinton in 2004, 8, 12, 16, 20… Hillary will stab him if this bill gets out of the House. 
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Nobody would notice what?
“This will drive the Reagan bashers nuts…” Was I right, or what?
Anyway, I stated a fact. You threw out a smear. Guess who’s voice is emotionally charged.
I think replacing presidential term limits with consecutive term limits is a good idea. From what I can tell, this would have the least negative consequences associated with it.
Instead make an amendment to the amendment.
Instead of electing a Dem or Rep to office, the election must be with only the Libertarian, Green, or whatever other parties are out there.
And to play counterpoint, even though I strongly prefer Clinton over Bush II, I would not support a revocation of 22 even if it meant Clinton could get back in the White House.
Guess Lemur’s assumptions don’t quite hold water.
I never meant we should admit or dismiss any question simply on the opinion of others. I suggest instead we judge by merit.
I agree with DSYoungEsq that the Constitution is more than just the written document. There are also our understanding of it. It’s hard to understand how the particular custom of serving only 2 full terms in the Oval Office could have been used in a court of law but there are plenty of similar understandings that have been reviewed by judges starting with principle of judicial review itself recognized in Marbury v Madison. The Senate, for instance, would have an uphill climb in trying to deny a seat on the court to an appointee that had been confirmed but not yet commissioned based upon the actual wording of the Constitution. They could try to argue that they consented but never advised on the nomination but the President’s lawyers would certainly counter with the 200 year tradition of nominating and confirming.
And please, no more with the myth that Hitler was ever democratically elected. The Nazi Party never acheived a majority in a contested election, even when they assaulted and terrorized their opponents. Instead if Germany had had a democratic constitution or leaders willing to stand on democratic principles then the Nazis never would have gained power. For a full dissection of the myth see Liberalism Resurgent.
And let me jump on the bandwagon. I wouldn’t vote for Clinton again.
2sense:
You may quibble about the details of Hitler’s rise to power, and the definition of “democracy”, but the point is that Germany was a democracy, and Hitler’s ascendency to dictator was almost entirely legal within the limits of the German constitution. The only “illegal” aspect of his rise was the final seizure of supreme power - ie, his final act of declaring himself “dictator”. To claim this wouldn’t have happened had Germany had a “good” democracy misses the point entirely. We can look back on Germany and claim their consitution was flawed by virtue of the fact that it allowed Hitler to seize so much power. I’m sure that the Germans in 1933 didn’t see their constitution as fatally flawed, though. Theoretically, our Constitution could contain similar fatal flaws that we just can’t see, but in 50 years, students will study how our broken Constitution allowed Hillary the Vicious to rise to power, only to be defeated by a valiant coalition led by the French and Iraqis.
Maybe the 22nd is unnecessary, but it’s hard to argue that it pretty much eliminates the possibility of a dictator to seize power as did Hitler and others, through the guise of democracy. (Note that such a list would not include Mussolini or Stalin - thanks to MEB for the correction.)
Jeff
ElJeffe
Are you under the impression that some German version of the 22nd would have tamed Hitler? Want to flesh out that hypothesis?
Or did I get you backwards? My apologies if so.
Whether it is Germany or Kansas City in the 1930s, the South during Reconstruction, or Philadelphia in 1742; when armed thugs are sent out to crack skulls on Election Day, that isn’t democratic. When there is a commitment to democracy the intimidation of voters is not tolerated. Again, had leading Germans been willing to stand on democratic principles and condemn and prosecute these acts of terrorism then the Nazis wouldn’t have gotten away with it.
Read over the link I provided. Hitler became Chancellor by cutting a deal. Whether it was legal or not is beside the point; it certainly wasn’t democratic. Although somehow I doubt that electoral violence was legal. Had Germany been more democratic I don’t see how the Nazis would have gained power. As it was they were able to slither between the cracks.
Once they gained power they ignored the law which is why the presidential term limit does nothing to prevent tyranny. A dictator can ignore a constitution. It is not some paper check that prevents dicatorship, it is Americans commitment to democracy. If we falter as the Germans did then we can lose it all. Only if people accept electoral fraud can it work. You know, like in our 2000 election.
What about that “Presidential Rap” that ends:
Surely I’m not the only one who remembers this.
To be fair, Clinton was making you a laughingstock, though indirectly. Much of the international community was looking at you and saying “Why are those idiots making such a big deal about a bit of oral sex? Geez, grow up!”
My recollection is that at the end of his 2nd term Reagan did suggest that he should be allowed to serve again. I can’t find a cite for that though so I could be wrong.
I think that Bush is going to remedy that amendment, if he gets reelected, just so that he can serve a third time. If it comes to that, I’d rather have such things not possible.
After all, power corrupts and 2 terms of 4 years is enough time to be at the helm; it’s not a good idea to have any single person guide the state any longer than that, imho.
And how, exactly, is he going to get the requisite number of states to ratify the new ammendment? Even if he were able to push this thru congress, you seem to be forgetting that improtant last step. People in this country generally favor term limits.
And GeeDubya wakes up screaming from his worse nightmare…
Can’t happen, won’t happen. The Pubbies will commit seppuku on the Senate floor before they would allow this to happen.
But damn! wouldn’t it be a hoot!
You are entitled to that opinion. My objection is that it is imposed on the rest of us. If there were no term limit you are still free to vote against anyone running for a third term but as it is those of us who think the 2 term president is still the best person for the job are not free to reelect them. The point of elections is to let people decide who should represent them. Who are the nanny conservatives to decide for them?
Now that’s a show I would tape and watch time and time again.
Bush would leave the stage mumbling and drooling. heh heh
According to a CNN poll last October, Bush would beat Bill Clinton rather easily.
The American public liked Clinton, but are also weary of him.