The experts are giving it little chance of passage, but H.J. Resolution 15 is stirring a lot of talk.
U.S. Rep. José Serrano (D-NY) has (once again) introduced a resolution to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If the resolution is approved by Congress and ratified by the states, it would once again allow a president to serve more than two four-year terms.
Doomsayers are already up in arms about the possibilities of an American monarchy. They fear an individual would become permanently entrenched in the officeT, either by clever abuse of power or by our just getting used to him, like that irregularly shaped mole on your back that you keep meaning to do something about. (“I swear, I’m voting that guy out of office next time — ooo, there’s a Three Stooges marathon on cable!”)
Yeah, right. The freedom to run multiple grueling reelection campaigns is Number One on the wish list of would-be tyrants in Third World nations. (“Let’s see...I could pump millions into a never-ending series of campaign ads — or I could pump hot lead into my predecessor and any opposition. *Sigh* Decisions, decisions.”)
Other voters fear that even the most honorable chief executive would inevitably outlive his “sell-by” date. Instead of traveling everywhere with Air Force One, he’d travel everywhere with Fiber One. He’d have to get his grandkids to help him figure out how to press the launch-the-nukes button. When he sought to buy our votes with goodies, he’d do it in a trench coat, near the playground.
Of course some of the behind-the-scenes manipulators would never be satisfied. (“Y’know, if we replaced his blood with that stuff they used to put in Twinkies, he’d probably have another two or three terms of shelf life.”)
Perhaps those squeamish about the resolution would be pacified if it provided for a gradual decline of presidential perks each time a president was reelected. Besides reductions in salary and medical care, this could include changing the Lincoln bedroom linens only once every fourscore and seven years or secretly replacing one random Secret Service agent’s gun with a Super Soaker.
We could also find ways to handicap the incumbent each time he sought reelection. Maybe all the “photo ops” would require the chief of staff to make devil horns behind the president’s head, or “Hail To The Chief” could be altered to sound more like “The Chicken Dance.”
Some citizens are satisfied that a president would eventually “jump the shark” in TV terms and ruin his own immortality. (“Instead of a new White House cat, we’re adopting a cute British kid. And wait’ll you see the zany new neighbors moving into 1601 Pennsylvania Avenue!”)
Repealing the 22nd Amendment is not a priority for me, but it’s certainly a fascinating topic that cries out for discussion.
Whatever your political leanings, the various “what if?” scenarios show just how complex the whole issue is. If Ronald Reagan had served extra terms, would there have been a Clinton presidency? If Bill had hung around longer, would there have been a Barack Obama White House? It’s enough to make Marty McFly jump into the DeLorean with Doc Brown and yell “C’mon, Doc, we’re going back to the days of wooden teeth!”
2013 Danny Tyree. Danny welcomes reader e-mail responses at tyreetyrades@aol.com and visits to his Facebook fan page “Tyree’s Tyrades”. Danny’s’ weekly column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons Inc. newspaper syndicate.
Juggernaut8000 posted at 4:21 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
The hell with appealing this, how about impeaching Obumbles?
abimopectore posted at 6:11 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
The political naiveté of such an action is almost too laughable to even take seriously. Was this piece trying to be funny?
samkat posted at 6:14 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
We definitely do not want to give the "chief civil rights activist" an opportunity for a 3rd term. Heck, I am surprised he has not already issued and executive order declaring himself an extension.
az2008 posted at 9:13 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
I'd rather see a Constitutional Amendment to have "instant runoff" ballots which allow voters to specify their 1st through nth choices. This would break the two-party monopoly on politics, alleviating many of the problems which "term limits" attempt to address.
Irons1 posted at 9:30 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
How about impeaching juggetnaut8000. He is a classic who has been around too long
bfgair posted at 10:46 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
What is REALLY needed is term limits for ALL of the lawmakers. Congressmen, Senators. We also need to NOT allow ANY person that has held a political office to become a lobbyist. Also we need to limit the amount of gifts and contributions to ALL political hopefulls to NOTHING. They are their to serve the people NOT to stuff their own pockets as they are doing now.
These are people that get a good salary and fringe benifits as well as the best health care and all of this is a lifetime of benifits for all of those that we as Americans put our faith in.
When I lose my job ALL of my benifits stop as well as my paycheck. Why should we as Americans continue to pay for some of these fools for life when they really didn't do any good to begin with
There are some major changes that need to happen long before we consider extending the length of terms for a president.
Tex57 posted at 12:04 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
How about one term and your done! That way we don"t have to pay these losers a pension!
KeithE4 posted at 7:55 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
Not only should Presidential term limits not be repealed, it should be reduced to one 6-year term. That would allow a President to do what he needs to do without having to worry about a reelection fight. A single 6-year term was first proposed by Rutherford Hayes in the 1870s, but it went nowhere (kinda like the rest of his Presidency).
Now, for those who want to see term limits for Congresscritters: Vote the bums out! Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. I've been trying to term-limit John McCain for years, but not enough people agree with me. ;-D
DonMey posted at 10:15 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
The Amendment was passed because after FDR died, there wasn't someone the American people could associate with government welfare. So people didn't know who to vote for. Well, we've come a long way from the radio and whistle-stop campaigns. The reasoning behind the Amendment is no longer valid in the mass information age.
That being said, George Washington set the precedent of only two terms, and FDR was the only person to violate that precedent.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:14 pm on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
I'd rather see an amendment to make the Presidency a six-year, one term office.
jahillsdale posted at 7:43 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.
Most definately!!!!!! About time....
jahillsdale posted at 7:45 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.
Yes about time to limit the terms for presidents.So we don't have a repeat of these past four years.
VofReason posted at 12:46 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.
Additional terms would run the risk of Executives using (questionable) powers to extend largesse to potential voters to extend their terms. This is theoretical of course (sarcasm implied), but could happen.