View Story | 53 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
didn't term limits pass after FDR?
There is such a thing as perfect timing you know.
Recovering Intellectual. 12 days stupid.
by scionkirk on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:02:06 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
The 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951.
Interesting that even though Republicans feared another FDR, Eisenhower was opposed to the amendment as was Reagan, yet Clinton was for keeping it:
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed his strong opposition to term limits, saying, "The United States ought to be able to choose for its President anybody it wants, regardless of the number of terms he has served." Ronald Reagan publicly supported repealing the amendment. Bill Clinton stated his opposition to repealing the amendment, but supported modifying it to prohibit former presidents from serving more than two consecutive terms, but permitting them to seek election after an intervening term.
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed his strong opposition to term limits, saying, "The United States ought to be able to choose for its President anybody it wants, regardless of the number of terms he has served."
Ronald Reagan publicly supported repealing the amendment.
Bill Clinton stated his opposition to repealing the amendment, but supported modifying it to prohibit former presidents from serving more than two consecutive terms, but permitting them to seek election after an intervening term.
by Rex Manning on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:07:52 PM PDT
Serve two terms, but be eligible to come back after an intervening term. If someone could be so popular that they could win renomination from a current candidate, perhaps that's not a bad idea. Clinton himself could have given it another try in 2004 after a term of Shrub. Anybody doubt that we would have been better off if he had been available for another term?
In any event, with lengthening and more healthy lifespans, the whole question needs to be visited again, especially if we get Presidents in their 40's and 50's who are able to serve when they retire.
A Crushie for Democracy
by CarolDuhart on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:07:08 AM PDT
But sometimes we vote with familiarity. It is very healthy, in my humble opinion, to bring new great people and ideas to the table. They are out there.
Life is a journey whether you choose a path, or the path chooses you.
by Dopusopus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 07:03:03 AM PDT
... and in that case, I would have been perfectly willing to wait four years for "very healthy" and "new great people and ideas to the table". Basically we would have the same presidential race we're having now, but with Clinton as president instead of Bush as president, which would have meant no Alito and no John Roberts, and possibly a signed hate crimes bill and federal funding for stem cells having gone forward since '05. Which would you have preferred?
by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:17:54 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 53 comments