Two-term limit under fire

[question everything]

(forgot to include the URL)

Los Angeles Daily News

Two-term limit under fire
Lawmakers aim to repeal 22nd Amendment

By Lisa Friedman
Washington Bureau

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - President George W. Bush for life? Well, not really. But Democrat Rep. Howard Berman would be willing to let presidents give it their best shot. The Van Nuys congressman this week teamed up with a small group of lawmakers trying to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms in office.

"I don't like arbitrary term limits," said Berman, who has represented his Van Nuys district since 1982. "I think our country was better off because Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to run for a fourth term," Berman said. "Imposing an arbitrary limit makes no sense."

(snip)

UCLA School of Law professor Daniel Lowenstein said he finds term limits "destructive," but more so in the state Legislature than at the presidential level.

(snip)

The 22nd Amendment repeal, if it passes and is approved by the states, would not go into effect until after the Bush presidency, making him ineligible for multiple consecutive terms. Berman, a lifelong Democrat, made a point of noting that fact when discussing his support for the amendment's repeal. But he also said even the possibility of another third Bush term would not have caused him to back off the resolution. "If we can't beat 'em on the third try, then we don't deserve it," he said.

Lisa Friedman, [phone] [e-mail]

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2937530,00.html#

[Inland]

1. If we dodge this bullet of fascism, not interested in risking it again.

I'd rather have Clinton for two terms than risk letting a future war criminal be in the position of deciding whether to run again (with a cowed press and a rigged election machinery) or be prosecuted for his crimes.

Bush would be pulling out all the stops if one more attack on america got thim a third term.

[minnesotaDFLer]

5. the hole reason this

amendment exists is to stop peopple from becoming almost like a king. obviously we can't let this happen

[question everything]

15. Also, I think that it was influenced by how sick Roosevelt was

when he was elected to his fourth term.. and died a few months after taking office, again.

While I strongly object to Bush's recent attacks on the Yalta Conference, one has to wonder how much influence Roosevelt's health had on the outcome.

[shanti]

47. how you mean?

they're already pulling out all the stops, this is but one of them!

[Inland]

52. Another attack and he'll take the power.

I guess the term limit IS a stop he would try to pull out. I've said that another attack on American soil and there wouldn't be any apology for taking the power that some Americans would want to give him---a minority magnified by the MSM and right wing echo chambers to seem like vast majorities were crowning Bush by acclamation.

Bush is NOTHING like Hitler: Hitler only needed one reichstag fire.

[legally blonde]

2. OMG---WTF!!!!!

Un-fucking-believable!

Instead of repealing the 22nd Amendment, how about we just appoint Bush emperor? :banghead:

Of course, if this does pass, that means that Clinton would be eligible for re-election.

[mom cat]

31. "God" has already anointed "Himself". Just think, if dimson was

elected for a third time we wouldn't have to worry about trying to save the planet anymore!

[Cha]

40. In-freakin'-credible that a Dem would

suggest this when we're fighting the Fascist Fight of our Lives.

Give that man a Raspberry Award!

[Independent_Liberal]

3. I'd never let them do something like this...

Nope, you guys have nothing to worry about.

[napi21]

4. It would have to pass in 34? states, and I doubt it could!

I don't think the idea could get enough public support to ever get ratified!

I know I don't want it, and all I'd have to say to my Pub neighbors is "Just think of having a guy like Clinton for 16 or 20 years!!!" They wouldn't vote for it either!!

[SuperCUBE]

8. This is ludicrous.

Ammendments to the constitution require all 50 states to agree upon it, isn't that correct? Or was it 3/4? Something like that. Not too sure.

The 2 year limit isn't arbitrary. It's there for a very precise reason. To make sure the executive office is "up with the times" so instead of putting somebody into office for life with a changing society, the president changes WITH society.

[DS9Voy]

35. No not all 50 states

you know, it only takes 30 minutes to read the constitution. (max) Do so, and then you'll have a basic idea how the government works.

[jmcon007]

9. Clinton? Yeah, who wants prosperity when we can have what we've got?

[catnhatnh]

6. It AIN"T arbitrary ASSHAT....

....it's about our founders desire for citizen-statesmen to serve their country and then "return to their farms and fields".Yeah...it was written as an anti-Roosevelt rule but what we really need is MORE term limits to remove foul accretions from the hull of our legislative bodies...

[SoCalDem]

20. AMEN.. More term limits

Congresspeople should serve a max of 2 consecutive FOUR year terms..running for office every 2 years means they never stop campaigning, and cannot really do their jobs.. they are always afraid of being "unelected"..

Senate should serve no more than 2 consecutive 6 yr terms.. I don;'t mind if they jump back and forth from senate to Congress, but they should not occupy one representational seat for more than 2 consecutive terms..

This alone would force them to be more attentive to the job they were "hired" to do.

[wickerwoman]

42. Except it's not "farms and fields" they are returning to.

Nowadays, it's more likely to be lucrative jobs in the insurance, banking or military industrial sector. I'm not sure I want to see the door revolving quite that quickly. I'm comfortable with the idea of career politicians, dedicated to lifetime of public service, rather than a bunch of people worried about getting jobs in the private sector as soon as they're booted out of office. Doesn't that make them even more susceptable to corruption?

The whole problem is campaign funding. The reason incumbants have such an advantage is that they can raise more money while they're in office and they have a larger platform for speaking. If we had federally funded elections and got private money out of politics we would level the playing field without discouraging people from devoting their lives to politics (and in the meantime getting quite good at it.)

I don't think we should suspend the 22nd Amendment until there are some serious hard choices made about campaign finance and a lot more is done to reassure people of the incorruptablity of voting technology but in principle, I think term limits do more harm than good.

[Bill McBlueState]

67. I agree that term limits aren't a good thing

Ohio has term limits in effect for its legislature. What this means is that instead of having career politicians who know something about compromise and the practical approach to government, the legislature is full of ideologues who know that whatever happens, they'll be moving on to something else in a few years. They get elected because they can fire up the rednecks in their constituencies, not because of their legislative records.

[the other one]

7. Bill Clinton for President n/t

[Broken_Hero]

10. The limit needs to stay...

Otherwise we will turn our presidents into Kings, or royalty of some sort, and we don't want that now do we? I think its kind, well, stupid to think of over turning the amendment, on the two term limit. What a joke, i wouldn't want clinton/bush or whomever in there forever, we need new blood/life in the white house every now and then and the amendment tries to accomplish that.....

[Eloriel]

I agree, esp. with the voting machines firmly under their control.

We're close enough to full-blown fascism now, already. I don't think many of us would survive another Bush term.

[sakabatou]

11. "...Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to run for a fourth term..."

And died shortly therefater. Idiot doesn't know his history...

[aquart]

12. The Republicans hated being out of power SOOO much...

That they forced this amendment thru, and have lived to regret it, like every other short-sighted idiotic thing they do. Like invade countries on wishful thinking.

The amendment was to punish Democrats but I don't mind it a bit. That's what pisses them off. WE have LOTS of good, competent, eligible people to run. Our last primary slate was outstanding.

[izzie]

13. Born to the Purple. Is the gene pool getting thin?

Just what we need to go back to being ruled by the Royals. He is out of it with no one to turn it over to. It is like we will have to start all over with a new nut case.

[Trajan]

14. Another Democrat: Steny Hoyer, is also pushing this ...

Honestly: WTF is WRONG with our party ? .. are they fucking NUTS ? ...

WAKE THE FUCK UP Hoyer and Berman: WE DO NOT WANT THIS ....

Represent US for a change, damnit ....

[Maine-ah]

16. question....

even though it wouldn't go into effect AFTER Bush is out, couldn't he at a later date run for president again?

[MadisonProgressive]

57. No, and neither could Clinton

It would apply to Presidents AFTER Bush*.

[K-W]

17. Term limits preserve democracy.

Democracy is not based on winning elections, it is based on legitimate representation. Allowing incumbents to accumulate power creates tyranny.

The same kind of tyranny now created because the wealthy can accumulate power.

[question everything]

21. One problem with term limit is lack of institutional memory

This is why California is considering at least tweaking it. You have to admit that a legislative body can benefit when its members remembering the history of specific rules and laws. Even Dole and Lott are better than these young Turks, Santorum and Frist.

You have people who think that they are going to reinvent the wheel. Who have no sense for history for what was done and how it was done for previous coalitions that were formed, just for passing a historic law.

And, then, again, in California, you have people jumping from one office to another, carpetbagging from one district to another just to stay in an office, any office. And, in contrast to John Edwards - a class act - won't resign or decline to run while seeking another office. Thus, when they do get the new post, you either have a governor nominating someone, or you have expensive special elections, and then someone else wins and another round of musical chairs and so it goes.

With today atmosphere, many cannot accomplish much in only two terms and they don't care about their legacy, only about what they'd do next.

Perhaps does not hold for a president, but certainly for a legislature.

I've heard of suggestions, years back, to make the Presidency a one six-year term which makes a lot of sense.

[baby_bear]

24. But a distincation needs to be made for the top office

There are no term limits on U.S. representatives or senators. OK. But let's keep the one on the president, because we don't want a king (we already have someone who imagines himself that).

States decide for themselves for their legislatures.

b_b

[K-W]

28. I was thinking mainly of the presidential limit,

but as far as legislators, I couldnt disagree with you more, and if history had happened to make older conservatives more vicious than younger conservatives your point about frist etc wouldnt make any sense. The problem isnt that they are green, it is that they are hacks, cronies and crooks.

You can get plenty accomplished in 2 years if know what you are doing. The fact that people who dont know what they are doing run our government is not a problem of term limits but of the structure of our system.

But I would rather see and end to gerrymandering and money politics than congressional term limits.

[Javaman]

18. how about instead we limit senators and congressmen terms...

To many fat cats tied to lobbyists and special interest groups are what's killing this country.
I have always thought, if there is a term limit on the prez then there should be on the senators as well.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

19. movement toward FASCISM...pure and simple. Welcome to Hell, folks. n/t

JB

[Roland99]

22. Best option? Eliminate ALL term limits. Give everyone a 1-time 6-yr term

That way, no one is worrying about spending time for re-election and they can focus on the reason why they were elected in the first place!

[sweetheart]

44. Sounds good ... excellent idea

The HR should be upped to 4 years, the senate to 8 and the pres to 6.
1 single term.. period for the lot of them. Then again, the republic
is so far gone, its like bolting solid timber on to termite rot... theres
nothing left of the constitution... it *looks* solid, but is gone in all
but appearance.

Betting odds are in favour of a military dictator saving the constitution
for the age of caesars and empire before we fix the constitution.

[Lerkfish]

23. in 2002 I posted this...

on another message board. I also posted it here much later, but couldn't locate it in a search...

This was my prediction for the neocon strategy. When I posted it, none of the things I'd mentioned had yet come to pass. since then, almost all of them have. At the time, I was accused of being a conspiracy nut....here goes (remember this was posted in 2002)

----------------------

How would the neocons achieve their goals?

I envision a three prong approach...

prong one: control all three branches of the government, and the intel community. Rumsfeld has already created his "CIA within the CIA" group, and the office of Homeland Security puts everything under the purview of Tom Ridge. More and more power controlled by less and less people.

prong two: quell with extreme prejudice the rights of citizens to protest by removing their access to due process, paving the road for political prisoners, like there used to be in South Africa. Sure, now its "suspected" terrorists, but how long until its anyone who disagrees with the administration? without access to legal counsel, the outside world and being held indefinitely and executed without trial, the US will have the ability to "disappear" citizens who are vocally antiadministration, and there won't be any way to prevent it since it will all be done in secret, with no protections.

prong three: rubber stamp the middle east, and then the world, in the US image. with prongs one and two in place, prong three will proceed without interference.

I know I'm extrapolating a bit, but you have to admit, everything is heading in this direction.

now, how will we know this plan is in place, or working in the coming days?

--elimination of civil liberties, weakening the ability of the citizens to stop the juggernaut
-- reshaping of the present character of the checks and balances system (like trying to stop filibustering), in such a way to advantage the executive branch over the other branches.
-- More and more "disappeared" people, along with executions in Guantanamo.
--

Also look for:
-- scenario: Bush loses the popular vote, again, and wins the electoral vote, but the chasm is wider, making it obvious the electoral college has been manipulated.
-- the rescinding of the two term presidency.
-- the permanence of US bases in Iraq as a base of operations, with the dropping of the MOAB on Syria or Iran, to "make a strong case" for submission to the US.

[whatever4]

25. Oh, the horrors

Every day, sit down to the internet to read what's *really* going on. Hear about this crazy nonsense, they're still trying this?? I just shake my head.

It is SO good to come on hear and read a page full of comments just like what I would say, and quite a few better than what I'd say. It's a good thing. Unlimited term president, bad. Internet news to let us know it's going on, good. DU with umpteen thousand of folks who know it, uplifting and priceless :)

You know, you'd think, if a president actually cared about his nation, he wouldn't try to continue to push his agenda long past the time he has even close to popular support. If he were the greatest thing since sliced bread, and our nation were screaming for that repeal for him, it would be one thing. A nation facing multiple crisis and deep in a badly progressing war is NOT one that needs this type of "pushing" of his agenda. Obviously bad for us, divisive, and if it passed? Would the "people" be happy?

So, is his motivation for the good of the nation? Hardly.

[burrowowl]

26. I recommend

a 7-year term period, with referendums held every 1 1/2 years or if things get dicy earlier!

One 7-year term elimnates all that campaigning for 2 years of the term.

[u2spirit]

27. The repeal of the 22nd amendment brought to you by

Diebold. When good old fashioned democracy just get's too boring!

[jobycom]

29. I agree with Berman. It's a fascist law. I'd love to see Clinton v Bush.

This undemocratic amendment was the first Republican attempt to bash FDR. The government shouldn't be able to tell me I can't elect who I want to elect.

Bush wouldn't win a third term, anyway. He wouldn't have won a first term if Clinton could have run in 2000. Bush, 9-11, and the Iraqi Invasion are all brought to you by the 22nd Amendment, IMHO.

[Bill McBlueState]

68. exactly

The government shouldn't be able to tell me I can't elect who I want to elect.

I think that sums it up pretty well. If the majority of Americans thought Bill Clinton was the right choice in 2000, why should their wishes be denied?

[Lorien]

73. * has Diebold-so yes, he could be dictator for life. n/t

[jody]

30. I don't believe 38 states would approve a repeal of the 22nd. n/t

[EST]

62. Yep, 67% of congress and 75%of the states (38)

Super majorities all around.

[AngryAmish]

32. Presidential term limits work well in our system

It is not easy to convict and remove a person under our system. We have regular elections where, in theory, the will of the people are heard.

In a parlimentary system there generally are not term limits for PMs. PMs have served, been voted out, and returned. The trade off is certaintty v. more direct democracy.

I support term limits and will not support any changes to the system.

[teryang]

33. The succession crisis continues

Now that the electoral process is totally corrupted at the front end, it's time to remove the Constitutional limit at the back end.

First came the suggestion for candidate Mrs. Bush, then Jeb, now this. The bush dynasty is in real trouble.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. Only when I trust the balloting process again.

I'm all for it. If there's a guy in there like FDR doing good stuff, let him be president for 20 years.

If I can trust the balloting process.

Which I cannot.

[warsager]

37. kick

[struggle4progress]

36. Uh, Congressman? It's not a good time to try to get Ds excited about this.

[progressivebydesign]

38. Fine with me.. Clinton would crush Bush if he ran again. n/t

[warsager]

39. Am I the only one terrified?

Okay this is one of those issues that I have half-jokingly mentioned could happen under this fascist government that we have in place. And now to see that it is something that is actually being considered is extremely frightening. How can anyone endorse such a thing?

What with all we know (or believe) about voting fraud, stolen elections, and coruption at the highest levels that includes murder, how could anyone agree with this? I don't care IF a Democrat could theoretically run more than 2 times, this is dangerous, scary idea!!!!

[AlGore-08.com]

70. Clinton wouldn't be eligible because laws cannot be retroactive unless

they are specifically written to apply retroactively. It is a very difficult thing to pass a retroactive law - - would you feel okay with being arrested or fined for something that was legal when you did it?

And even if the law was written to apply to Presidents who were in office before the law took effect, how are you going to disallow Smirk and allow Clinton? The odds are very small that Smirk will ever even face an impeachment vote in the House - - so unless that comes to pass, legally, there would be no grounds to single him out. You'd have to risk Smirk returning to office to get another shot at Clinton.

Whether Clinton would win another term is another discussion (and the answer is he wouldn't)... and who knows what kind of right wing corporate stooges will get elected in the future - - Reagan could have easily won re-election in 1988, and possibly 1992 and beyond, since everybody was covering up his altzheimers...

I don't know what Howie Berman is smoking on this one, I really don't...

[ckramer]

41. I would say term limit stays BUT we should allow formal president

to run for office again. I support a Constitution amendment on this.

If a president is really good for the country, take a four year break shouldn't be considered a lost.

If that is the case, Bill Clinton would be our president today.

[warsager]

43. another kick

:kick:

[sweetheart]

45. Its the revenge of the sith repeal

figures this asshole would come from van nuys. Hey, why not put up
an emperor amendment that specifies golden carpets, crowns, titles and
palaces for the corporate regency.... what a dick...

"Howard Berman -> dickhead... butthead's brother"

[shanti]

46. WTF??

their impunity knows no bounds! :-( they have NO plans to leave!

and berman sounds like a clueless eediot!

[dejaboutique]

48. there is no way this will happen

I just can't see this happening. republicans and democrats alike will not allow this to happen. if they do then we are in big trouble

[schrodingers_cat]

49. If the states, in fact, did agree to repeal it,

all that the neocons would need to do is ammend the repeal (in some gargantuan omnibus package)to change the date that it takes effect, and PRESTO, we have the Chimp for life! Bananas, anyone?

[warsager]

50. I like to believe that

this will never happen. Not because the democrats or republicans actually care about the constitution OR our rights, but because they don't want to open the gates to the potential of a permanant dictator that would crush any power they think they might have.

I think the only way this could/would happen is a complete seizing and overturning of ths amendment, perhaps with claims of national security, time of war necessity, etc bull$hit.

[VegasWolf]

51. Exactly, should be a ONE term limit. nt

[DrZeeLit]

53. Why bring this up when his poll numbers are in limbo land...how low

can he go?

*'s not electable again under any circumstances.
He'll be lucky to serve out his term.

[liberalpragmatist]

54. Fine by me

I don't think most presidents would be in a state to run for a third term anyway. I doubt Bush would win a third term even if he ran. And if he did, we could run Bill Clinton against him and win handily.

Frankly, had there been no 22nd, then Clinton would've run for a third term and won.

Worst case scenario would be that Reagan was elected to a third term - but then we'd have a Democrat probably elected in '92, just like what actually happened.

Anyway - I ask DU'ers this - was FDR not justified in running for four terms? Why was it okay then but not okay now? What if we ever are in a WWII-type situation again? Arguing that "those were special times" is silly - who's to say that there won't be times like that again?

I'm confident that if we had this, we would not have a third term for Bush. I don't even know if he'd run - he'd be more than happy to get back to his ranch.

[Endangered Specie]

55. Great, then we could run the Big Dog again...

and, no matter how much they tamper with Diebold machines, hed be able to win :)

[AlGore-08.com]

71. No, we couldn't and no, he wouldn't

Clinton NEVER won a majority of the popular vote. He won the electoral vote because he won a very, very slim victory in a few swing states. A batsh*t crazy third party candidate - - Ross Perot - - won 19% of the vote in 1992 and 9% in 1996, and Perot wasn't even running in 1996. If Clinton was so popular/charismatic/whatever you want to call it, he would have won at least 50% of the vote against Perot and BOB DOLE. Clinton was the incumbent President of the United States, running against BOB DOLE and a batsh*t crazy guy who wasn't even running and he still got LESS THAN 50% OF THE VOTE.

This is the reason the Republicans will win in 2006 and 2008 - - we don't know our own history, we just know our own spin.

[Porcupine]

56. Does this guy look like Jar-Jar Binks?

I'm starting to find the parallels between the rise of the Sith in the Star Wars series and the current administration just too bizarre.

Trust thm to enlist a DINO to promote *'s agenda.

[Matilda]

58. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

As the Australian Labor Party continues to shoot itself in the foot
at every opportunity, it's looking more and more as if we'll have
John Howard until he drops dead.

It's not a pleasant prospect - I wish we had a limitation.

[Dover]

59. Putin is working on the same thing in Russia. Dynasties need a bit more

time to establish themselves, don't ya know.

[warsager]

60. Dover

You are right. Also, what is the pic? I love it!

[Dover]

61. Thanks! You must be new here....lol!

Welcome!

I was asked that question alot when I first started using that picture. Beautiful isn't it? Unfortunately the artist is unknown...got it off a website and the webmaster didn't know its origins either.

[EST]

63. Ummm- I think your picture was created by

Spider and Jeanne Robinson (both sides of this husband - wife team were artists, dancers, and enormously talented writers) in support of a novel they did for Analog Science Fiction/Fact, about 1978.
The title escapes me at present; the tale was serialized across several issues of the magazine. The story was developed against the backdrop of a ballet in space. I could well be mistaken, but I am sure I've seen the picture before and this is what my brain serves up.


On edit - Stardance, of the Stardance sequence

[Dover]

64. Hmmmm.....well it would be a good title for the picture perhaps

but in looking at some of the artwork associated with that science fiction piece, Stardances, my feeling is it's not related. But I can sure see why you linked the two in your mind.

[EST]

66. I must confess, my memories from twenty five years ago

do seem to lack precision, however, they did a whole series of artwork, not connected to the actual appearance of the story. I had the opportunity to view some some of their work and thus my "striking similarity" button got pushed. Oh, well, my big chance to contribute went up like a fly in a candle. (sigh)

[CoffeeCat]

65. Why in the hell would a Dem suggest this now???

Excuse me, but we're fighting fascism here.

Bush needs to be OUT, with no chance of ever returning.

Why on Earth would a DEMOCRAT fight for repealing the 22nd NOW???

I'm sorry to be tin-foilish--but I smell a big rat. Was this guy paid off? Is he being blackmailed?

I can hear Rove now, "OK...if we want to get rid of the twenty second Amendment, someone in Congress has to start the fight. It can't be a Republican. That would be too obvious. Ok, who do we have major dirt on?"

I'm really smelling a rat here.

This does not make sense at all.

[Bill McBlueState]

69. We went 162 years without the 22nd amendment and things went fine.

It's a weird time for a Dem to bring this up, but remember that the amendment process takes a while -- this does not mean Bush will be able to run again in 2008. And so what if he does? Are we so lacking in confidence that we think he could win again?

I don't see why people can't vote for the candidate they prefer. Without the 22nd amendment, Clinton would have been re-elected in 2000, and this whole mess would've been avoided. Term limits are anti-democratic.

[AlGore-08.com]

72. Good grief, without the 22nd Amendment, Clinton would never have been Pres

Because Ronnie Raygun would have been President from 1980 until he passed away in 2004! At the very least, he would have been in office until they couldn't cover up his altzheimers any more - - probably until 2000.

Without the 22nd Amendment, Smirk Daddy. would NEVER have become President. The GOP NEVER would have dumped St. Ronnie of the soundbyte for him - - instead they would have groomed another empty suit to replace Smirk Daddy.

Without Smirk Daddy's disastrous 1992 campaign, and without Ross Perot, Clinton would have never won office. Never.

Am I the only one who lived through both the Reagan and Clinton administrations? Am I the only one who was paying attention?