From our Whiskey Tango Foxtrot news department

[valarltd]

We knew it was coming!

An editorial for repealing the 22nd Amendment

From the NY Times.

Should presidents - whether George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton - be denied the opportunity to serve their country and carry through their programs? Should they be allowed to govern without any accountability to voters? Should voters be denied two supreme powers - the right to give popular presidents more terms in office and to repudiate a failed president at the polls? "We ought to take a serious look and see if we haven't interfered with the democratic rights of the people," Ronald Reagan said in 1986.



Can we talk?
Or does anyone want to hide unde that quilt in the back of my closet with me for a while?
Or better yet, who is for mass emigration?

Comments

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

It's also from the department of ironies.

The 22nd Amendment was created by *Republicans* to prevent another FDR.

I don't approve of term limits for the reasons in this editorial, and, honestly, I think very few politicians survive three terms in executive office (the pattern for NYC mayors, for example, has been this way. They rarely get a fourth term (or another job in politics).)

And remember, if we didn't have that amendment, Bush would *not* be president now. Clinton would certainly have gotten a third term, and I suspect Gore would be president now.

If only...

[watergal.livejournal.com]

 

[itsirtou.livejournal.com]

I agree with the editorial -- especially since the two-limit thing began as just a tradition when the FIRST George stepped down after two terms, and only became an amendment in the forties. And I think if we had someone absolutely amazing in office, I would be upset when they couldn't run for a third term. I mean -- hey, the President's term will be limited when the people get tired of him making mistakes in office and vote for someone else. I don't really see a need to limit the voter's choice because they've liked the same president for eight years. I suppose the only good I see in the amendment can either be good or bad -- that Presidents run their entire first term to get elected for a second, and it's only in the second term that they can actually start doing what they see as good for the country. (But, as we see today, this can be a Very Bad Thing sometimes.)

That being said, however, if they want to repeal it to keep Bush in office...I'll be taking you up on the mass emigration offer.

[lordindra.livejournal.com]

I personally disagree with presidential term limits. I think that the term limits shoudl be on Congress.

Constantly fluctuating congress spurring change. Moderately fluctuating Presidency moderating the changes a bit, and the lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court providing a firm wall to make sure the underlying interpretations of the constitution don't change often.

[caretta.livejournal.com]

If someone wouldn't mind coming to NC and picking me up, a mass emigration sounds nice. How does Canada sound?

[morgan-d.livejournal.com]

Brasil is lovely at this time of the year. ^_~

[ruckuskitten.livejournal.com]

Hmm...as frightened as I am of W recieving the abbilty to run again and therefor fuck over the world for another 4 years, maybe the guy who wrote this has a point. I mean, if you're fired in a couple years anyway, you can afford to screw up some. If you're allowed to run again, maybe you'll actually try to be a good president. Then again, W's idea of a "good president" seems consistant with his ideas of "good christain" and "good capitalist" and therefore I don't think I want him to try much harder.

That all being said, if he ever could have the abillity to run again, I'd stay in Norway and change my name to Anagerd Bjørnsdottir.