On repealing the 22nd amendment

posted at 9:31 am on December 1, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

This is one of those issues which seems to pop up reliably during the second act of every two term presidency. Should we impose term limits on US Presidents and was the 22nd amendment really a good idea? It’s a concept which has been unofficially in place since the first President and was then enshrined in the constitution in 1951 as a backlash against FDR. Of course, the people most exuberant about the idea tend to be supporters of the current White House occupant and for all the wrong reasons. This cycle is no exception, with Jonathan Zimmerman taking to the pages of the Washington Post’s editorial section to argue that Barack Obama deserves a shot at a third term.

“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.

Even if you are making the case that term limits shouldn’t apply to the presidency, it should be obvious that it’s a complete non-starter to try to apply it to the current president. The opposition party – in this case the Republicans – are never going to sign on for the 2/3 congressional vote which would be needed. If the opposition holds the White House and the President was popular enough to win back to back elections, you’re not going to risk a third bite at that apple, no matter how far his numbers may be in the tank today. In fact, Congress knew this when they passed the original language, making it non-applicable to the President at the time.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

That caveat was one of the arguments being made by Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway, along with a broader complaint against doing away with term limits.

… I’ve got to say that Zimmerman doesn’t make a particularly strong case for repeal of the Amendment. He repeats the standard general arguments against Term Limits that we’ve heard for quite a long time now, and goes on to argue, paradoxically, that the inability to run again in 2016 both increases and decreases Presidential power. In the end, though, it seems clear to me that eight years, or ten years in the case of a Vice-President who succeeds to the Presidency within no more than two years of the end of President’s term, is more than enough time for any one man or woman to serve in the highest office in the land. Indeed, given the extent to which recent Presidents have tended to gather more and more power into the hands of the Executive Branch that is then utilized by their successors, it is perhaps a good thing for the nation that no one person can serve for more than two terms. Indeed, I’ve come to believe that the concept of term limits should be expanded beyond the Presidency and into the House and Senate, but that is a topic for another day.

Part of Zimmerman’s argument seems to be that it’s somehow inherently “wrong” to impose term limits, and I find that to be rather specious on the face of things. The entire idea of having elected officials and the mechanisms for how they are elected and how long they serve are constructs we created by group consensus. We define different lengths of terms for both elected and appointed offices, ranging from two years for House seats to lifetime positions for Supreme Court justices. We can certainly place similar limits on how many terms they serve if that’s what we choose to do.

But beyond that, I tend to agree with George Washington’s original impulses. The office of the presidency has tremendous power in some areas, and as Doug notes, that power has grown significantly since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Leaving one person at that particular helm for too long strikes me as troubling because that’s how despots are spawned. And the problem with despots is that even if you manage to find a benevolent one, you’re rarely going to generate two in a row. An infusion of fresh blood and new ideas on a regular basis has to be a generally good thing, even if a few of the individual experiments (read: today) may go off the rails for a while. The 22nd amendment has been in place for more than half a century now and I see no need to upset that apple cart at this point.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Moochelle will take the crown. No repeal necessary.

Dingbat63 on December 1, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Remember, before FDR every president followed Washington’s lead and declined to run for a third term. The principle of no third term had virtually been enshrined as one of the bedrocks of America’s unwritten Constitution–to borrow the title of one of Akhil Amar’s books. So we had to amend the Constitution to put officially in place a policy so strong that every denizen of the White House followed it until we had in the office a man who figured he wasn’t bound by the written Constitution, let alone an unwritten one.

radjah shelduck on December 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM

I basically agree with what you wrote, Jazz. Imposing term limits denies de jure legitimacy to someone who would be a de facto dictator, which will always make it difficult for such an aspirant to successfully consolidate power without a naked power grab consisting of some drastic action like suspending the Constitution.

Stoic Patriot on December 1, 2013 at 9:40 AM

So the Washington Post pushes the idea of repealing the 22nd amendment and HotAir is all over it like flies on sh1t. At the same time there is substantial movement in the Article V process with conservatives and their respective state legislatures all across the country and HotAir has yet to write about it.

I wish it wasn’t so, but I find myself perusing other sites more these days.

*If HotAir has covered the Article V movement outside of the headline threads I’ll stand corrected.

Meat Fighter on December 1, 2013 at 9:40 AM

In the present day, the 22nd is critical to our survival. ‘Nuff said.

HomeoftheBrave on December 1, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Zombie Reagan 4 Prez.

blammm on December 1, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Leaving one person at that particular helm for too long strikes me as troubling because that’s how despots are spawned.

Liberal: And?

dominigan on December 1, 2013 at 9:44 AM

I’ve always been in favor of a 6 year one term only. It seems that 2 years of the first term is campaigning for the next election. I also don’t believe a President should be allowed to campaign for anyone while in office.

msflea on December 1, 2013 at 9:45 AM

I wish it wasn’t so, but I find myself perusing other sites more these days.

Meat Fighter on December 1, 2013 at 9:40 AM

I’m always looking for fresh insights. Would you mind sharing names? Thank you : )

herm2416 on December 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM

I support the idea for one, six-year term for the US President.

Now I know Mexico has this same deal for their president, but I think it is a better idea than what we have now. I understand this isn’t a popular idea.

BigGator5 on December 1, 2013 at 9:48 AM

A good way to put an end to this would be for Bush to start talking about running again. The thought of an obozo vs Bush election should disabuse everyone of that idea.

Flange on December 1, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Indeed, I’ve come to believe that the concept of term limits should be expanded beyond the Presidency and into the House and Senate, but that is a topic for another day.

I agree that we need term limits for all positions in order to prevent career politicians. It is my belief that if one is in office to long they become disconnected from real life.

Dr. Frank Enstine on December 1, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Moochelle will take the crown. No repeal necessary.

Dingbat63 on December 1, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Sad to say but I do believe that that is what is going to happen.

Dr. Frank Enstine on December 1, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Meat Fighter on December 1, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Wow. If there is a honest Article V movement going on, I want more information. Links?

BigGator5 on December 1, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Repeal? No thanks…

Khun Joe on December 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM

I’ve always been in favor of a 6 year one term only. It seems that 2 years of the first term is campaigning for the next election. I also don’t believe a President should be allowed to campaign for anyone while in office.

msflea on December 1, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Agreed for a number of reasons: campaigning by sitting presidents leads to a toxic political culture and exorbitant travel costs, leads to backroom cronyism and suboptimal pandering for cheap votes, and lowers the office of president to a partisan role, rather than an executive one.

blammm on December 1, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I don’t understand… why can’t Obama just make an executive order overturning it? Why can’t the Democrat controlled Senate just deem Obama has a life term?
The lib controlled media isn’t going to protest. The worst thing Boehner would do is send a letter to Obama protesting his life term or maybe hold a press conference or something. Sooner or later, Boehner will submit, state that Obama is President for life now and Republicans need to fall in line.

JellyToast on December 1, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Obama uses Air Force One as a taxi to and from his continuous fund raisers. There ought to be a rule against that.

birdwatcher on December 1, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Nobody is that good as a president. If George Washington said two terms are enough for him then two it is. Dictators and kings are breed because they can’t let go of power. Two and OUT! Come to think of it one and out might even be better!

Herb on December 1, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Term limits should be extended to Congress – 12 years maximum in the House or Senate. That will eliminate senile old fools like Feinstein and Grassley (80), Mikulski and McCain (77).

bw222 on December 1, 2013 at 9:58 AM

I’ve always been in favor of a 6 year one term only. It seems that 2 years of the first term is campaigning for the next election. I also don’t believe a President should be allowed to campaign for anyone while in office.

msflea on December 1, 2013 at 9:45 AM

I like the idea of single terms and I would push it for all offices. I also like the idea that no sitting president can campaign for anyone.
I would also restrict the whole campaign process to 120 days prior to the election. I personally would like to see it set to 90days prior but that would never Our politicians spend more time campaigning for their next term then they do working at their job.

Dr. Frank Enstine on December 1, 2013 at 9:59 AM

You not only need 2/3 of each house of Congress, but also majority votes by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Good luck with that.

I expect Obama to hang around DC as kind of a shadow president (except in winter, when he’ll be off in Hawaii golfing). Chicago is too small and midwestern for his ego, and he already ticked off Emanuel and Daley. Jarret will have little pull in the Dem machine there.

Obama thinks he will still be a force in Dem politics, but if he cannot deliver money (his fundraisers are having 50% sales on the prices) or votes (except for the VA governorship, he seems to be the kiss of death), he will be tossed aside by the Dems like Carter. Judging by the Dems edging away from Obama, I doubt there would be many in Congress that would want him around for a third term, anyway.

Wethal on December 1, 2013 at 9:59 AM

JellyToast on December 1, 2013 at 9:54 AM

More true than we would like to admit.

Dr. Frank Enstine on December 1, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Term limits should be placed on the bureaucracies as well. The career people in the various departments, such as State, Justice or the EPA, need to be reigned in as well.

Flange on December 1, 2013 at 10:03 AM

I wish it wasn’t so, but I find myself perusing other sites more these days.

Meat Fighter on December 1, 2013 at 9:40 AM

I don’t think many would deny that Hot Air’s best days are behind it.

bw222 on December 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Don’t worry; Teh SCOAMT will administratively set aside the 22nd.

Steve Eggleston on December 1, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Nobody is that good as a president. If George Washington said two terms are enough for him then two it is. Dictators and kings are breed because they can’t let go of power. Two and OUT! Come to think of it one and out might even be better!

Herb on December 1, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Yep!

workingclass artist on December 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM

I don’t understand… why can’t Obama just make an executive order overturning it? Why can’t the Democrat controlled Senate just deem Obama has a life term?

The lib controlled media isn’t going to protest. The worst thing Boehner would do is send a letter to Obama protesting his life term or maybe hold a press conference or something. Sooner or later, Boehner will submit, state that Obama is President for life now and Republicans need to fall in line.

JellyToast on December 1, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Funny and chilling…

Fallon on December 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Many of the old guard hee at HA predicted this movement would begin before The Stool was inaugurated.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Let’s start with repealing the 17th Amendment and enforcing to their fullest extent the 9th and 10th. Then add another for TERM LIMITS on all elected officials and judges.

Repeal the 22nd Amendment. Please. One furhrer is enough.

Rixon on December 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Term limits should be placed on the bureaucracies as well. The career people in the various departments, such as State, Justice or the EPA, need to be reigned in as well.

Flange on December 1, 2013 at 10:03 AM

They shouldn’t be allowed to unionize either.

workingclass artist on December 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM

If you are going to repeal any amendments it should be the 17th and 19th amendments.They have done incalculable harm.

celtic warrior on December 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM

…how many elections can somebody steal?

KOOLAID2 on December 1, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Many of the old guard hee at HA predicted this movement would begin before The Stool was inaugurated.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM

It wasn’t that hard to predict because Obama is historical and has an historical transformative agenda or something…

workingclass artist on December 1, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I think at this point the Democrats want Obama gone as much as anyone. Yes, the fund raising has been sweet. Yes, they got two bites of the apple. The problem is Obama has become a sort of incompetent Captain Ahab. The Dims will lie about it, but even they know their ship is in big trouble with this psycho clown at the helm.

claudius on December 1, 2013 at 10:18 AM

It is precisely because the people might want to elect someone – anyone – to a third term that the 22nd Amendment became and remains necessary.

Knott Buyinit on December 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Wow. If there is a honest Article V movement going on, I want more information. Links?

BigGator5 on December 1, 2013 at 9:52 AM

This has been started largely by Mark Levin’s new(ish) book The Liberty Amendments, but has been picking up a little bit of steam in some of the state legislatures, including, just within the last couple of weeks, Indiana. I’m not sure anyone thinks it really will or can happen, but more people are talking about it now than I can recall ever happening before.

WesternActor on December 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Remember, before FDR every president followed Washington’s lead and declined to run for a third term. The principle of no third term had virtually been enshrined as one of the bedrocks of America’s unwritten Constitution–to borrow the title of one of Akhil Amar’s books. So we had to amend the Constitution to put officially in place a policy so strong that every denizen of the White House followed it until we had in the office a man who figured he wasn’t bound by the written Constitution, let alone an unwritten one.

radjah shelduck on December 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Not quite. FDR’s uncle Teddy Roosevelt ran for what was essentially a third term in 1912, 4 years after completing almost 2 full terms. Also, Woodrow Wilson tried to get a third nomination out of the Rats in 1920 but failed to do so, though that may have been more his wife trying to take advantage of an invalid Woodrow.

Steve Eggleston on December 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Have you ever seen the presidential before and after pictures? That job ages a man quickly and it can probably be argued that it killed FDR. I don’t see why anyone would want the job for more than two terms.

Kafir on December 1, 2013 at 10:21 AM

It’s the same problemo with political dynasties…Which create an entrenched political aristocracy.

There should also be term limits on SCOTUS.

Nobody expected a Supreme Court Justice to sit on the bench for 25-30 years.

Douglas was on the bench for 36 years.

workingclass artist on December 1, 2013 at 10:22 AM

The opposition party – in this case the Republicans – are never going to sign on for the 2/3 congressional vote which would be needed.

No Problem, Harry Reid will impose 50% +1 and viola…

jaydee_007 on December 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM

…how many elections can somebody steal?

KOOLAID2 on December 1, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Three.

Fallon on December 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM

I’ve come to believe that the concept of term limits should be expanded beyond the Presidency and into the House and Senate, but that is a topic for another day.

Why another day Doug? What’s wrong with this day?

Lost in Jersey on December 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM

I would expand the 22nd to all Federal offices. You get one election and one re-election. If you want to run for another political office, go ahead, but you only get two shots at that office, too. And no, you can’t run for the *other* Senate office if you’ve already been a Senator for two terms.

DarthBrooks on December 1, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Let the red states leave the union, and form a new nation.

Then the blue states can do as they wish – make 0bama their fascist “Dear Leader” for life.

Rebar on December 1, 2013 at 10:27 AM

The 22nd Amendment is settled law.

Right?

haha

JackM on December 1, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Jonathan Zimmerman taking to the pages of the Washington Post’s editorial section to argue that Barack Obama deserves a shot [...]

I, uh … hmmmm. Well. That is just wrong to say. It’s wrong.

Paul-Cincy on December 1, 2013 at 10:29 AM

“This is one of those issues which seems to pop up reliably during the second act of every two term presidency. *snip* When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again.” – Jonathan Zimmerman, WaPo

Name one, just ONE, Zimmerman. He can’t. I sure don’t recall anyone calling for RR to run for another term. Buehler?

And then, a saner head prevails on the debate stage:

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway, along with a broader complaint against doing away with term limits.

This “issue”, in its entirety, should be put to rest. It simply will never happen. Think: Mad Vlad (Ras)Putín cum Medvedev cum Mad Vlad. Can Mad Vlad (Ras)Putín cum Medvedev cum Mad Vlad (Ras)Putín be far behind – again?
Despots do not relinquish power without a fight.

GHWB was a tired old Vet who moved too much to the “other” side as he grew older and weaker. Much like Barry Goldwater, but my Senator Goldwater was also influenced by his “live-in nurse” who became his second wife. Barry too went off the rails. I guess he “mellowed”. *sigh*
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM

“This is one of those issues which seems to pop up reliably during the second act of every two term presidency.”

Every *Democrat* presidency, you mean. I don’t recall hearing significant clamor for this during Reagan’s or GWB’s 2nd terms.

KS Rex on December 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

I would love it if Boehner would say “Any mention by Obama or any of his appointees of repealing the 22nd amendment will trigger the convening of an investigation into Democrat high crimes and misdemeanors, about which there is more than enough evidence to impeach this president.”

I wish Santa was real too.

drunyan8315 on December 1, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Term limits needs to apply to every office holder in the federal government.

jawkneemusic on December 1, 2013 at 10:33 AM

I assume the reference to Article V is Levin’s call for a constitutional convention for the “Liberty Amendments,” and stories, comments are easily found by searching “Levin calls for constitutional convention.”

Hannity had him on one night talking about it, a couple of months back.

Levin is rather sanguine about the ability to contain all the mischief that might arise, and seems to think that nothing but good can come from it. I am very nonplussed about his reasons for thinking that.

All kinds of people, right and left, e.g., Tribe, Cuccinnelli, have weighed in saying that once the convention is called, it’s Katie bar the door.

My problem is that there’s an analogy between this and the immigration matter: if government isn’t enforcing immigration laws now, why should we think they will enforce new laws? Similarly, if our rights are being ignored now, if the Constitution is being ignored now, what’s to prevent some new enshrinement of our liberty from being ignored?

The Framers knew that it would take the vigilance of the citizenry; more important, in Madison’s words, “the virtue and intelligence” of the citizenry to keep the government in check.

(Not to mention that Republicans continually claim that this WH is lawless. But when the question is asked why Republicans in Congress don’t file suit, the answer is “well, it will take too long.” Of course, they lose the opportunity to tell the American people that the violations of the Constitution are serious enough to go to court…they succeeded with the “recess appointments.” Why not try some more?)

EastofEden on December 1, 2013 at 10:34 AM

******************* BOINKING NUTS *********************************

canopfor on December 1, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Trying to break Unions for Federal Government workers is a red herring IMO. They are not allowed to strike, not allowed to bargain for any salary issues, monetary or other awards, vacation time, sick time, etc. They can only negotiate for working conditions and within very strict guidelines. The most irritating thing they do is representing marginal employees and extending the process somewhat when firing them. That can be tedious for a manager.

State employee Unions are another matter entirely.

Johnnyreb on December 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

This is one of those issues which seems to pop up reliably during the second act of every two term presidency.

Funny I don’t recall such talk during GWB’s second term. Certainly not with WaPo advocacy- which makes this all partisan drivel. Trying to find a way to make a truism out of the concept that if you like your dictator you can keep your dictator. Period.

Happy Nomad on December 1, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Term limits should be extended to Congress – 12 years maximum in the House or Senate. That will eliminate senile old fools like Feinstein and Grassley (80), Mikulski and McCain (77).
bw222 on December 1, 2013 at 9:58 AM

I don’t think many would deny that Hot Air’s best days are behind it.

bw222 on December 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Two Truisms … and in a row!

EastofEden on December 1, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Very well said.
Now, let’s focus upon repealing the 17th Amendment and get the Socialist Party out of D.C.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM

RePeal/RePlace Hopey?Changey!!

canopfor on December 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM

It was mentioned above that Mark Levin’s book has motivated a serious movement on invoking Article V. Indiana state senator Dan Long was interviewed by Mark Levin recently. Mark was stunned that this was happening. He was also thrilled that The Mount Vernon Assembly is meeting Dec 7 2013. There will be 26 states represented at this assembly. They need 38 to be really serious. But the fact that they have 26 already gives me great hope. Here is a link http://mobile.spectator.org/theamericanspectator/#!/entry/the-mount-vernon-assembly-a-constitutional-convention,5287ab2e025312186c8908ad

Conservative4Ever on December 1, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Important Number #1: 37. The number of states required to amend the Constitution.

Important Number #2: >50%. The number of states with Republican majority legislatures and/or Governors.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

clippermiami on December 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM

EastofEden on December 1, 2013 at 10:34 AM

I think the reason there will be no impeachment proceedings against Obama is that the Republicans used the impeachment card against Bill Clinton. To try to impeach the second Democrat president in a row and the first black president would be a PR nightmare. I think this may be why they haven’t tried appointing a special prosecutor as well. It would lead directly to impeachment.

Do you trust a majority of Americans to see through the Democrat smokescreen on this issue? Sadly, I don’t.

claudius on December 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM

In the present day, the 22nd is critical to our survival. ‘Nuff said.

HomeoftheBrave on December 1, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Yep. This fascist a-hole has done everything in his power to corrupt our electoral process, from funding his ACORN lackies with millions of tax dollars, to using the NSA to collect information to use in his voter databases, to weaponizing the IRS to intimidate any opposition.

It would be beyond insane to remove the one existing check on his power.

AZCoyote on December 1, 2013 at 11:07 AM

It would be beyond insane to remove the one existing check on his power.

AZCoyote on December 1, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Yeah, it is a shame that Congressional Republicans only give lip service to that whole oversight thingie.

Happy Nomad on December 1, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Important Number #1: 37. The number of states required to amend the Constitution.

Important Number #2: >50%. The number of states with Republican majority legislatures and/or Governors.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

clippermiami on December 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I’m pretty sure it’s 38 needed. The Mount Vernon Assembly meeting on Dec 7 2013 has 26 already. I never get people like you who quit before something starts. No one thought we would win the Revolutionary War either. Why give up before the battle even starts?

Conservative4Ever on December 1, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I’m okay with this as long as the 17th gets repealed as well. Maybe icing in the form of the 60 vote filibuster as a new amendment.

platypus on December 1, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Conservative4Ever on December 1, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Take a look back at the Virginia Convention of 1861. They went in intending to stay in the Union and went out voting to secede.

http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Virginia_Secession_Convention

claudius on December 1, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Our system of elected government was not predicated on people who would choose government service as a career. Yet that is what we have had in the 20th and 21st centuries. Career politicians. Now some wish to enshrine the presidency as a career as well? We need exactly the opposite, we need to limit all federal terms of service, and total years of service so we do not end up with career politicians in the federal government. We need citizens who have a desire and a calling to leave private life for a short duration to serve their nation and then to return. It is this connection to non-governmental life that our system was designed upon, citizen government. That was the desire of our founders. It is here we can preserve the liberty they bought for us.

paulsur on December 1, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I’m okay with this as long as the 17th gets repealed as well. Maybe icing in the form of the 60 vote filibuster as a new amendment.

platypus on December 1, 2013 at 11:14 AM

I agree the repeal of the 17 is the most important repeal. That has moved us farther away from being a Constitution Republic than anything that has bee done in our history.

However the 60 vote filibuster rule is a rule in the Senate. The Constitution grants the House & the Senate leeway in making rules for their respective bodies. Messing with that is getting to far into the minutia. Something we should avoid. Just my opinion though.

Conservative4Ever on December 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Conservative4Ever on December 1, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Take a look back at the Virginia Convention of 1861. They went in intending to stay in the Union and went out voting to secede.

http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Virginia_Secession_Convention

claudius on December 1, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Strawman arguments everywhere. They went into that assembly to specifically talk about secession. The Mount Vernon Assembly is meeting to specifically discuss Article V. Huge difference. Not even sure why you brought up your point?

Conservative4Ever on December 1, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Take a look back at the Virginia Convention of 1861. They went in intending to stay in the Union and went out voting to secede.

http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Virginia_Secession_Convention

claudius on December 1, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Yeah well all that work done in early 1861 came to naught when just three days after the attack on Fort Sumpter Mr. Lincoln decided to force the issue by calling for Southerners to rise up against the “rebellion” in Charleston. Virginians and all Southerners were essentially forced into war by the heavy hand of the tyrant from Illinois. The area now known as West Virginia being the exception because it had a different economic base and was always somewhat ignored because it was on the wrong side of the mountains from Richmond.

Happy Nomad on December 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I wish it wasn’t so, but I find myself perusing other sites more these days.

Meat Fighter on December 1, 2013 at 9:40 AM

I’m always looking for fresh insights. Would you mind sharing names? Thank you : )

herm2416 on December 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Twitchy , therightscoop,to name a few.

(I still like HA, no offense intended moderator friends)

cableguy615 on December 1, 2013 at 11:42 AM

FYI — Aristotle explained in “The Politics” the need for Term Limits at ALL levels of government — Incumbents become entrenched and powerful through the use of favors and favoritism — “If you are not going to limit the Term of Service then why bother having elections?” — Amazing how so many who profess to be highly educated forget the arguments made by those they supposedly learn from

TimLenox on December 1, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I agree the repeal of the 17 is the most important repeal. That has moved us farther away from being a Constitution Republic than anything that has bee done in our history.

However the 60 vote filibuster rule is a rule in the Senate. The Constitution grants the House & the Senate leeway in making rules for their respective bodies. Messing with that is getting to far into the minutia. Something we should avoid. Just my opinion though.

Conservative4Ever on December 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM

I don’t think you’ll get people behind repealing the 17th. Here is what I think we need to do: Add another amendment that provides for a third Senator from each state. That Senator will be appointed by the state legislature and will be required to reside and office in his state and only be in DC for joint sessions of Congress. That Senator will otherwise vote remotely and be limited to two five-year terms.

The Amendment will also establish the 3/5 majority rule and require that 1/3 of the votes used to pass non-budgetary matters come from the remote Senators.

It will also be a federal crime to approach that Senator for the purpose of lobbying.

Kafir on December 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Yeah well all that work done in early 1861 came to naught when just three days after the attack on Fort Sumpter Mr. Lincoln decided to force the issue by calling for Southerners to rise up against the “rebellion” in Charleston. Virginians and all Southerners were essentially forced into war by the heavy hand of the tyrant from Illinois. The area now known as West Virginia being the exception because it had a different economic base and was always somewhat ignored because it was on the wrong side of the mountains from Richmond.

Happy Nomad on December 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Exactly! Events overtook them and produced the opposite of what was intended. On April 4th they voted 80-45 against secession. They were trying to organize talks for a peaceful resolution. On April 17th they voted to secede. On May 23rd a popular vote overwhelmingly approved the Order of Secession.

claudius on December 1, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Repeal, and this once great Republic will soon be a dictatorial, socialist state and your hard earned liberties will be gone.

rplat on December 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Through history, only dictators, tyrants, emperors, and monarchs required life-long power.

“President for Life”. Why not? Its working so well every else.

BobMbx on December 1, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Here is what I think we need to do: Add another amendment that provides for a third Senator from each state. That Senator will be appointed by the state legislature and will be required to reside and office in his state and only be in DC for joint sessions of Congress. That Senator will otherwise vote remotely and be limited to two five-year terms.

Kafir on December 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM

So……. Your solution to Senate gridlock is to increase the size of the Senate by 50%? You’re a Democrat, aren’t you?

Happy Nomad on December 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM

I spent a good deal of yesterday on that site talking to idiots. Sign up for Disqus and give it a go. Take the fight to them……with all these comments.

avagreen on December 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM

12 years in Washington, max. 6 terms as rep, 2 as senator, 2 as president in any combination a Also no sitting Senator or Representative should be able to run for president. It was never intended to be a permanent job. Also, no pension for reps or senators.

Mini-14 on December 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM

I don’t think you’ll get people behind repealing the 17th. Here is what I think we need to do: Add another amendment that provides for a third Senator from each state. That Senator will be appointed by the state legislature and will be required to reside and office in his state and only be in DC for joint sessions of Congress. That Senator will otherwise vote remotely and be limited to two five-year terms.

The Amendment will also establish the 3/5 majority rule and require that 1/3 of the votes used to pass non-budgetary matters come from the remote Senators.

It will also be a federal crime to approach that Senator for the purpose of lobbying.

Kafir on December 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM

So you propose to amend the Constitution to establish growing the Senate when it will take the same process to repeal the 17th??!!

How many meds did you take this morning?

Conservative4Ever on December 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM

12 years in Washington, max. 6 terms as rep, 2 as senator, 2 as president in any combination a Also no sitting Senator or Representative should be able to run for president. It was never intended to be a permanent job. Also, no pension for reps or senators.

Mini-14 on December 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM

IMO, it is less about term-limits in Congress (the Senate in particular is seniority-driven). The problem is that none of them ever leave. Even when out of office they stay on K Street or otherwise circle around Congress. John Breaux is a perfect example. When the Dems were looking for somebody to run for Governor against Bobby Jindal, they tried to draft Breaux. The only problem was that he hadn’t lived or owned a home in Louisiana for years and was, in fact, a registered voter in Maryland.

It is, of course, impossible to get Congress to harm their own economic good deals (like being exempt from Obamacare) but you can’t get rid of the political class unless you make them go “home.”

Happy Nomad on December 1, 2013 at 12:37 PM

I agree the repeal of the 17 is the most important repeal. That has moved us farther away from being a Constitution Republic than anything that has bee done in our history.

Conservative4Ever

Excluding the “Bill of Rights” (the first 10 amendments) the Constitution has been amended 17 times in the 222 years since 1791.

Six, or 1/3 of those amendments, have been in my lifetime. That should concern all of us.

Our founding fathers deliberately made amending the Constitution a long and difficult process. Then to further complicate the process, they created a branch of the legislature, the Senate, responsible to the states with the intention that the Senators, not reliant on popular vote, could provide a dispassionate view of any potential changes to the Constitution.

I believe a fundamental shift in our government began in 1913 when the 17th Amendment changed the method of selecting Senators.

The Senators, now subject to popular election could no longer act as that moral and legal “brake,” although their six-year terms gave them some protection.

It’s worth noting that the first amendment passed after the 17th was the 18th, Prohibition.

Would the 18th Amendment, poorly conceived and quickly passed, been approved if the Senators were still selected by the states legislatures? It’s an interesting subject for debate.

I personally believe the Constitution has become so easy to amend because too many Senators have essentially abrogated their role as a brake to the temporary exuberance of popular sentiment.

The states legislators have been selecting senators a lot longer than we have been voting for them.

I believe we should be very cautious about what we add to (or repeal from) our Constitution

BTW, Claude Pepper represented Florida in the United States Senate from November 4, 1936, to January 3, 1951, and the Miami area in the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 1963 until his death on May 30, 1989.

He was a career politician rooting for other career politicians. He thought the Soviet Union to be shining light of minority protection.

He was a hack liberal politician who fed off the public teat his whole life.

E9RET on December 1, 2013 at 12:39 PM

BigGator5 on December 1, 2013 at 9:48 AM

I could live with that … 6 years … I also support term limits on congress.

conservative tarheel on December 1, 2013 at 12:40 PM

So you propose to amend the Constitution to establish growing the Senate when it will take the same process to repeal the 17th??!!

How many meds did you take this morning?

Conservative4Ever on December 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM

I live in a very conservative county in Texas. We had a county GOP convention. Someone raised the idea of putting language into the platform calling for repeal of the 17th. It was defeated by an overwhelming majority. If you can’t get a bunch of hard core conservatives behind even something as toothless as a section in a county party platform, how are you going to get vast numbers of squishes as well as Democrats behind actual repeal?

The truth of the matter is that without popular voting for Senators, Ted Cruz would not have had a chance and that is why a lot of people will not get behind repeal.

Therefore, I think we would be better served adding a Senator.

Kafir on December 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM

All dynasties go to Hell, from the left to the right.

The land is sick of all of you, shameless power-hacks.

NO more Clintons, Bushs, Kennedys, obamas and the likes.

Schadenfreude on December 1, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Would the 18th Amendment, poorly conceived and quickly passed, been approved if the Senators were still selected by the states legislatures? It’s an interesting subject for debate.

E9RET on December 1, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Prior to the 16th amendment, the federal government got most of their revenue from excise taxes on alcohol so you can bet your last dollar that the 16th and 17th were the groundwork for the 18th.

Kafir on December 1, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Yeah well all that work done in early 1861 came to naught when just three days after the attack on Fort Sumpter Mr. Lincoln decided to force the issue by calling for Southerners to rise up against the “rebellion” in Charleston. Virginians and all Southerners were essentially forced into war by the heavy hand of the tyrant from Illinois. The area now known as West Virginia being the exception because it had a different economic base and was always somewhat ignored because it was on the wrong side of the mountains from Richmond.

Happy Nomad on December 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Happy Nomad really IS an old school Democrat, isn’t he?

unclesmrgol on December 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Remember, before FDR every president followed Washington’s lead and declined to run for a third term. The principle of no third term had virtually been enshrined as one of the bedrocks of America’s unwritten Constitution–to borrow the title of one of Akhil Amar’s books. So we had to amend the Constitution to put officially in place a policy so strong that every denizen of the White House followed it until we had in the office a man who figured he wasn’t bound by the written Constitution, let alone an unwritten one.

radjah shelduck on December 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Socialists don’t believe in term limits…it’s for the welfare of the Proletariat you know.

As an aside, it’s interesting to note that the Confederate Constitution limited the president to one six year term and had a line item veto provision. Just saying that these issues were apparently a concern to some 150 years ago.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 1, 2013 at 12:55 PM

There are currently 36 Senator age 66 and older.

bw222 on December 1, 2013 at 1:00 PM

This issue is a load of bullcrap. The 22nd Amendment is even MORE needed than during the time of FDR. The REB has turned the IRS, NSA, FBI, and soon certainly Obamacare into a fascist monster of political oppression which can be used to establish a dictatorship propped up by phony Egyptian-style elections.

The 22nd is all that stands between us and a North Korean ‘Dear Leader’.

slickwillie2001 on December 1, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Happy Nomad really IS an old school Democrat, isn’t he?

unclesmrgol on December 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Um….. No. But I think that after nearly a 150 years, a fairer assessment of the tyrant from Illinois should be given than the idolatry that glosses over significant aspects of the Lincoln administration. Put another way Abe was neither honest nor a friend of the Constitution.

Happy Nomad on December 1, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Pay attention

Schadenfreude on December 1, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Trying to break Unions for Federal Government workers is a red herring IMO. They are not allowed to strike, not allowed to bargain for any salary issues, monetary or other awards, vacation time, sick time, etc. They can only negotiate for working conditions and within very strict guidelines. The most irritating thing they do is representing marginal employees and extending the process somewhat when firing them. That can be tedious for a manager.

State employee Unions are another matter entirely.

Johnnyreb on December 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

I strongly disagree. Greedy government unions represent an extremely Left-partisan shadow management structure that is allowing the Democratics to corrupt the IRS, NSA, and other powerful federal bureaucracies. I believe they are behind the attacks on the TEA Party that the IRS has conspired in and waged which continues to this day.

The REB enhanced their power further with an Executive Order that allows greedy-union representatives access to management meetings and decisions.

slickwillie2001 on December 1, 2013 at 1:12 PM

The reason that the new Article V process is gaining steam is because people are realizing that short of violence to include succession there is only one Constitutional method left to restore the Republic. That method is the second segment under Article V which shouldtate ws the people via their state the gislatures to circumvent the out of control federal government. This isthe exact reason George Mason fought for its inclusion.

Unlike past Article V movements which have been decentralized and focused on one specific idea, this current movement organized at the national level but propelled via the states legislative districts.

Currently there are a number of States who are planning on filing or have pre-filed (VA) the common application for a convention of States for the purpose of a amending the Constitution. I have spoken with and already received the an affirm yes vote from my state representative in Florida district 4.

The philosophical and historical argument in favor of the process can be found in Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments. The organizational structure to this movement can be found at http://www.conventionofstates.com.

All the arguments I have heard against this process were my own prior to getting involved and learning more. Please visit http://www.conventionofstates.com to learn more.

Meat Fighter on December 1, 2013 at 1:14 PM

I’m thinking we need to limit it to ONE term for president and two for congress.
Nothing good comes from a president’s second term.

AllahsNippleHair on December 1, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Um….. No. But I think that after nearly a 150 years, a fairer assessment of the tyrant from Illinois should be given than the idolatry that glosses over significant aspects of the Lincoln administration. Put another way Abe was neither honest nor a friend of the Constitution.

Happy Nomad on December 1, 2013 at 1:03 PM

An historian spoke at one of our TEA party meetings. In the Q&A session, I asked him about repealing the 17th. He said states’ rights died at the end of a bayonet in the war between the states. The 17th just made it official. Lincoln preserved the union but had to effectively kill part of the constitution to do it.

Kafir on December 1, 2013 at 1:17 PM

I have a question. If the 22nd repeal were to be done, is it via the Senate? And, if so, could Reid’s nuclear option ram it through?

PackerFan4Life on December 1, 2013 at 1:19 PM

NO more Carters!!!

Schadenfreude on December 1, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Trying to break Unions for Federal Government workers is a red herring IMO. They are not allowed to strike, not allowed to bargain for any salary issues, monetary or other awards, vacation time, sick time, etc. They can only negotiate for working conditions and within very strict guidelines. The most irritating thing they do is representing marginal employees and extending the process somewhat when firing them. That can be tedious for a manager.

State employee Unions are another matter entirely.

Johnnyreb on December 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Absolutely correct, sir.

AllahsNippleHair on December 1, 2013 at 1:20 PM

I’m thinking we need to limit it to ONE term for president and two for congress.
Nothing good comes from a president’s second term.

AllahsNippleHair on December 1, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Agreed – it’s worth sacrificing the few good ones for the good of the land.

All who brung/kept obama, go directly to Hell. I hope he destroys you all, you sheepleton of the world.

Schadenfreude on December 1, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Term limits all the way, baby, for every public office:

Eight years (not ten) for U.S. Presidency
Eight years (two four-year terms) for U.S. Senate
Six years (three two-year term) for U.S. House
Ten years for U.S. Supreme Court

For starters.

MisterElephant on December 1, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2