Rush Limbaugh fears for the safety of the 22nd Amendment:
You have to wonder if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite when he tries to serve beyond 2016. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment, which term limits the President of the United States. He may not do it that way, he may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his cult-like followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is loved and adored has carte blanc once elected. Just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it.
Of course, Limbaugh’s concerns are completely unfounded, and he’s doing little more than indulging his characteristic paranoia. That said, I can’t say that I would particularly mind it if President Obama spearheaded an effort to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Indeed, a few months ago, I even tried to build a case for repealing the 22nd Amendment. Here’s the key part:
What’s more, the current two term limit is demonstrably harmful to the quality of governance; it practically ensures that a president’s second term will be dramatically less effective than his first (lame duckitude). Added on top of that is the fact the status quo sets up incentives for ignoring public opinion, since when it comes down to it, a president in his second term is no longer accountable to the electorate. At that point, the only thing keeping the executive in check is Congress and political realities. But if Congress isn’t oppositional, and if the president is unconcerned with the fate of his party, then even those checks fall away, leaving us with a president virtually unencumbered by the concerns of the nation (i.e. George W. Bush). Which isn’t exactly a great place to be, all things considered.
Although Bush’s presidency was mostly worthless, it was helpful in that it revealed some fundamental structural weaknesses in the American system of government, one of which is the fact that there are few – if any – incentives for a second term president to pursue his/her agenda with gusto. Repealing the 22nd Amendment is a little dramatic, but I think that it would go a long way in ensuring that the president remains responsive to the concerns of the public.
I think we can agree that as democracies (effectively) dismantle term limits for the chief executive, bad things tend to happen. Besides, since the 22nd Amendment was passed, how many Presidents could have made a strong case for a third term?
It is probably safe to say that the best two years of Bush’s term were the last two. That’s directly attributable to Democratic win in 2006 to be sure, but it does show that there are forms of accountability.
I’m okay with keeping the 22nd amendment but I’d like to add change the criteria for impeachment from high crimes and misdemeanors to no confidence and allow for same party succession if the VP was impeached as well. That’d deal with rogue lame ducks.
Probably a debate worth having, but I’m not persuaded by the “democracy” argument, mainly because we’re not a democracy; we’re a republic.
“I’m not persuaded by the ‘democracy’ argument, mainly because we’re not a democracy; we’re a republic.”
Yes, yes, but this is a nonsensical response. We don’t ask our representatives to elect the president, so being a republic is besides the point. Even assuming that small “r” republicanism is fundamental to all aspects of American governance (which would ignore the different types of institutions that make up America) we can still consider voter interests an important part of keeping or altering the amendment.