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

[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.