I realize there will be hundreds of diaries written about this subject up until the time that our party's nominee, Barack Obama, selects his running mate for the general election. (Speaking of that, have I mentioned red state governor and Obama supporter Kathleen Sebelius lately?)

I digress. Other than the myriad reasons why Hillary should not win the Veepstakes—high negatives, Clinton-era baggage, the enmity of African-American voters, etc.—my argument against the "dream ticket" can be summed up thusly:

Bill Clinton could be the next Dick Cheney.

The 22nd Amendment, limiting the service of a United States President to two elected terms, was ratified by the States and amended to the United States Constitution in February  of 1951.

Traditionally, following the lead of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, American Presidents had limited themselves two terms in office by choice. There was one exception to this tradition. From 1932-1945, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt served as President of the United Sates, in the process winning election to the presidency no less than four times. He was and is one of our most beloved presidents.

However, six short years after his death, the people of the United States amended our Constitution to prevent future presidents from serving more than two terms.

There were and are sound reasons for American citizens to do this in 1951 and those reasons are relevant to our nation in 2008...

Barack Obama's recent statements calling out Bill Clinton for statements he's made about Senator Obama's record on the war and on vague "voter suppression" allegations that were supported by the former president's personal observations are past due.

Hillary Clinton has the biggest Ace in the hole: the political infrastructure, name recognition, and status conferred by the former President. In effect, Barack Obama is running against two people on the same ticket.

Since the Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution was ratified in 1951, there have been numerous bipartisan attempts to repeal term limits for the President of the United States.

As Hillary Clinton "embraces her husband’s legacy" and Bill makes "the case that theirs was a co-presidency," I wonder if Hillary supports her husband’s belief that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution should be modified.

I thought Karl Rove had "retired" so he can go to the hinterlands and instruct all the new U.S. Attorneys on how to trump up indictments against all the well-meaning, patriotic Democratic candidates.

It is unbelievable that the Bush family should have gone through all the time and effort of the U.S. Attorney scandal for the benefit of someone else’s family

diary as originally posted was truncated, now complete

I am not a lawyer.  I do teach government (including Advanced Placement) to high school students.  As a result I spend a great deal of time with the Constitution.

I tend to be skeptical of most proposed changes to our basic governing document.I certainly opposed the idea of for only the second time (after the 18th Amendment and Prohibition) of restricting personal liberty as embodied in the proposed amendment to ban flag desecration that failed by one vote in the Senate last summer.  

But I do worry about holes, places where the Constitution perhaps does need fixing,to correct either inconsistencies or to address issues that we have never considered before.   For example. what if we impeach a Vice President?

I've been drinking again so here is another diary entry.  My very first diary was on the subject of repealing the 22nd ammendment (the one limiting Presidential terms).  I submit once again that the Democrats should play against type and engage in just such brinksmanship as to bring a repeal of this ammendment to the floor of Congress.  Here's why...

In the hypothetical world, anything can happen.  Assume that the 22nd amendment was repealed before the 2008 elections.  Whom would you rather see as president, Bill Clinton or Al Gore?  Note that I'm not asking who would be most likely to win in the general election, just whom would be the more ideal president.

Something to think about RE: the constitutional limit on Presidential terms.

   We have been wondering for a while now who would be our best ticket too take the Prsidency back. We have all seen many Blogs on the subject and seen many possabilities. I woke up this morning thinking about this. I got to wondering, could Bill Clinton be elected as Vice President?
http://www.answers.com/...

   The twelfth amendment to the US constitution requires vice-presidents to meet the same requirements as presidents, and the 22nd amendment limits presidents to being elected to only two terms. It is however debated

In these times of Terror and Death, with Dear Leader Bush, Reich Commander Rove, and Reich Commandant Cheney doing all they can to fight those who would kill us in our homes, we need to give the Dear Leader more time to complete his Mission.

After the confirmation of Just Judge Alito, I respectfully ask that the Supreme Court of the Reich suspend the 22nd Amendment. In extraordinary times, extraordinary measures are needed. We cannot afford to change Leaders in times of War, because this would be a sign to the Terrorists that we are ready to surrender. I pray that the Nine Just Judges will act courageously to allow Dear Leader to serve until the War Against Terror is completed by either suspending the 22nd Amendment, or suspending elections in 2008.

Oh dear.

I knew someone would bring this up

More below . . .

There was an Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times written by James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn, who teach at Williams College, advocating the repeal of the 22nd amendment. They base their argument on what they call the "second term blues", that is, bad things that happen to presidents during the second, lame-duck term.

I think their argument may in fact have merit. I am generally opposed to term limits because it interposes an artificial barrier between voters and elected officials. However, their Op-Ed got me thinking about another potential problem that could be exacerbated by a repeal of the 22nd amendment: the imperial presidency.

For the past 5 years, we have watched BushCo push the boundries on acceptable acts of the President of the United States. Since 9/11/01, the acts have become more outrageous, under the guise of national security. Today the United States is less democratic than it was 5 years ago and the President has asserted himself as the superior branch of government. The Executive no longer accepts being subject to the checks and balances of the Legislative or Judicial branches of our constitutional government.

The Court of our Imperial President is now putting out feelers to weigh how the public will react when Bush refuses to leave office after his second term.

The push to repeal the 22nd Amendment- below the fold: