In Defense of the 22nd Amendment

In 2003, former President Bill Clinton made this remark on CBS' 60 Minutes: "I think presidents should be limited to two consecutive terms, then after a time out of office should be able to run again."

We can't say we weren't warned.

This election season, Bill Clinton's abrasive campaigning on behalf of his wife has already been criticized by influential Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Jim Clyburn and even long-time Clinton ally Rahm Emmanuel. Clinton's harsh (and often false) accusations against his wife's main campaign rival, Senator Barack Obama, are simply unbecoming of a former president.

One has to wonder whether Clinton is not running for that third term he's been talking about.

After being the chief executive of Arkansas and the United States of America for a total of 20 years, is Clinton ready to move back in the White House and respect the ultimate authority of a president, to whom he happens to be married? From what we've seen on the campaign trail, Bill Clinton can hardly take a back seat.

He openly embraced a merit-less lawsuit to block shift workers from caucusing in the Vegas strip -- sites that had been expected to favor Obama. He called Obama's plan for Iraq a "fairy tale," and said a vote for the Illinois senator would be like rolling the dice. More recently, Clinton misquoted Obama's comments about the Republican Congress of the 1990s, claiming his wife's rival had said the Republicans were full of "good ideas."

If Bill Clinton is not running for president, somebody has to tell him.

But Clinton alone is not to blame for his current flirtation with a White House encore. I was one of millions of Americans who wished aloud that Clinton could run again in 2000. But like most Americans, my comments were tongue-in-cheek, not to be taken as an invitation to circumvent the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bars a president from serving more than two full terms.

Perhaps it was Clinton's many travels around the world that inspired a comeback. In contrast to our own traditions, many of Europe's parliamentary systems allow a head of government to stay on the job indefinitely. Germany's long-ruling chancellors like Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schroeder have led some Germans to complain about their Kaiserkanzler ("Kaiser chancellors"). In hardly democratic Russia, Putin's super-presidency will likely continue from the sidelines until he can officially run again in 2012.

But that was hardly what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our republic.

Franklin D. Roosevelt has been the only president to serve more than two full terms. All others either would not, or could not, serve more than two. The 22nd Amendment made official what most Americans already seemed to agree on: that eight years in the most powerful office is enough for any individual.

To be sure, a Hillary Clinton presidency would not violate the letter of the 22nd Amendment. She would be the president. But if Bill Clinton keeps up such a high profile and highly politicized role, it may just violate the spirit behind it.

Bill Clinton should remember that Americans expect their former presidents to gracefully step down, and step down for good. Certainly, no one expects them to engage in petty attacks or dirty campaign tactics against fellow party members in a contested primary election.

If Hillary Clinton is truly ready for prime time, she should take the reins of her own campaign, and show the electorate that a co-presidency is not in the works. After all, Senator Clinton is a qualified, driven and shrewd individual. She doesn't need her husband to be the face of her campaign, and neither does America.

Follow Nathan Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/engagingiran

Comments

[Philip22]

part 3
In the special case of Bill and Hillary you have a man who can not run for the Presidency because of the constitution. Hillary’s run is a way, identical to the Governorship of Lurleen Wallace, and the only way for the Clintons to subvert the intention of the law but not the letter.
What Hillary and Bill are doing is not illegal but it is certainly against the intention of the 36 plus states who ratified the 22nd amendment and whose failing was not to imagine a married couple both winning the Presidency.
If you support Hillary Clinton for president you are supporting the Clintons’s third term. You are not supporting some revolutionary moment in woman’s history. If you feel you are then her’s is the legacy of Lurleen Wallace and Mary Bono, not Susan B. Anthony or other woman’s rights activists.
If you do not support term limits than you should support the repeal of the 22nd amendment. If you support the 22nd amendment in all good conscious you must conclude that Hillary’s run is the subversion of it. No one person, and through the societal understanding of marriage, no couple can be President for more than 10 total years.

[Philip22]

part 2

George and Lurleen subverting the constitution of Alabama by tag teaming the Governorship is most interesting in Mrs. Clinton’s current run for the white house. Perhaps even more interesting is the spousal roll of succession on the state level.
In California, when Sonny Bono died, Mary Bono, his wife was appointed Congresswoman. In Missouri when Mel Carnahan died while running for the senate (he was not even a senator, only on the ballot when he died) his wife Jean became the Senator.
In marriage we know that what is his is hers and vice versa. Artist’s widows for example can legally sign their husbands work and it is considered authentic, as in the cases of Lindy Hart, Georgette Magritte and Yoko Ono. The special relationship of marriage understood by those who defend traditional marriage and by those who wish to expand its definition is unlike any other union and we have seen this special relationship play out in the Presidency. Both Nancy Reagan and Edith Wilson assumed roles beyond any notion of the constitution. In Edith Wilson’s case long periods of time passed when she was Woodrow Wilson’s only non-medical consultant. How is Edith Wilson’s role in government even conceivable if society does not see a married couple as something other than 2 people living together?end part 2

[Philip22]

Love Bill and Hillary, hate them, or anything in between you can not see Hillary’s bid for the white house as any thing other than the Clinton’s third term. And, in seeing that, you will realize that her run for the Presidency, while not illegal, is a perversion of the 22nd Amendment to the constitution.
The 80th congress who wrote the 22nd Amendment in 1947 was specific enough to make sure that no one person remain President for more than 10 years to the date. The amendment was to take the tradition of a maximum of a 2 term Presidency begun by George Washington and only broken by Franklin Roosevelt and make it law. It took 5 years and three fourths of the states to ratify this amendment but the people had resoundingly spoken. During this period executive office holders in many states including the Governorship of Alabama were subject to different term limit laws.
George Wallace was Governor of Alabama for one term and wished to continue in the job but the law of the state did not allow any person to hold two consecutive terms. So Wallace ran his wife Lurleen for Governor and she won. When the next term came up George could run again and the law was changed so he could win a 3rd (read 4th) term. end of part 1

[Damfino]

There appears to be little memory here for those folks opting for undoing the 22nd Amendment. I was alive (barely, but not voting) when FDR was our preident and we all knew he was a sick man while running for his fourth term. We needed him then and then he died and we, the nation, was shaken, but we survived. True, resentful and vengeful Repuglicans shoved through the 22nd Amendment, but thank God they did. How'd you all like Nixon for a third and/or third term (providing he didn't totally mess up). Or, how about a third and/or fourth term for Ronnie Raygun? Does that suit your fancy, you folks hungering for a third or fourth term Bill Clinton? No, I'm a life-long Democrat but I'm damn glad the Repuglicans shoved through that 22nd Amendment. Else we'd have had no George H.W. 'cause Ronnie would be running the country today despite his Altzheimer and we'd never know the difference. All we'd be stuck with is a bunch of President's for Life which sounds something like dictatorship to me.

[JackWOrf]

A second argument against Amendment 22 is that it eliminates INCENTIVE. What incentive does a lame duck President have to do a good job? None.

Bush can sit there with a 2% approval rating and so what? "Yuh gotta problem with that?", he would drawl. What does he care? He doesn't give a (F-word). Why should he give a (S-word)? There's nothing in it for him. Hard work is a pain in the (A-word). Why bother?

Lame Duck Presidents are in an extremely bizarre position. Suddenly, these insanely ambitious personalities are in a situation where they can not only not get another term as President, no matter how good their performance, but they also can not even get another job.

Amendment 22 is IDIOTIC and should be revoked. This would be of totally bipartisan benefit, since its revocation favors neither Republican nor Democrat. And it would be ENORMOUSLY beneficial to America.

[yowza1]

Yeah. I mean the Republicans are parading their heavily lipsticked Betty Crockers up there to show what great family men they are, along with the gaggle of kids raised in all probability with the help of an illegal hispanic nanny. They can afford to keep their wife at home not working while they go out ripping people off with their cheating deceitful business practices and their "business deductions" for their giant polluting noisy pickup trucks. Republicans need to be shown their day of reckoning, and if they don't like Hillary's assertiveness and her unwillingness to be cowed by cheesy accusations about their nosy interest in her husbands affair with a delectable available young sweetie, then they can shove it up their collective "patriotic" tax avoidant flag waving a . . . .es.

[RLHotchkiss]

Like all term limits the 22nd Amendment is a direct assault on Democracy. Not does the amendment rob the voters of the ability to vote for the person they want. Even worse it encourages Presidents to think only about four years. Bush can slash taxes and throw us into a costly war and let are reputation and strategic position go south and then spend the rest of his life get a hundred thousand bucks from folks he made richer than Nazis.

Join me in the revolution at
www.thebloodyflag.com

[WireDolly]

And so nobody thinks that George HW Bush is pulling the strings for his son??? Seriously, why not a wife, instead of a son?

[JackWOrf]

The 22nd Amendment is IDIOTIC. It was put there by a bunch of short-sighted, mean-spirited Republicans who never wanted to see another FDR. But was FDR a bad thing?

And when you think about it, is Amendment 22 even NECESSARY? Look at all of the Presidents since FDR. How many of them could possibly have even run for a third term?

The only Presidents since FDR who could have, or would have, run for a third term are Reagan, Clinton and The Idiot.

If Reagan had run for a third term he would have been a much BETTER President then George Bush I was.

If Clinton had run for a third term in 2000, he would have been a much BETTER President than GW Bush was.

Curiously, both of the Presidents who have BENEFITTED from Amendment are 22 are named George Bush. BOTH of them were ONLY elected because of Amendment 22.

George Bush I would not have been nominated in 1988 if Reagan ran for a third term, and George Bush II would not have won in 2000 if Bill Clinton had run for a third term.

The conclusion: Amendment 22 is an institution GUEARANTEEING that we will continue to have MEDIOCRE Presidents who get elected on the basis of toothpaste ads rather than performance.

If a President has made it alive thru 2 terms, and he is still popular enough to get re-elected, why on earth should he not be allowed to run??? Are the American People to be considered as so stupid that we should not be allowed to re-elect good Presidents?

A President who is running for a third term is running on the basis of his PERFORMANCE, rather than just more of the same stupid empty promises. Which is what we are getting from most candidates now.

Without the stupid 22nd Amendment, we could dispense with this whole stupid clown show. The candidates would be George Bush versus Bill Clinton.

And at least people know what that means.

[OhgReaTone]

Hey - is anyone surprised that a spouse would be supportive of a candidate's run for president - don't make this more than it is. Paranoid Magazine is looking for contributors.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/21/bill-clinton-supports-hillary/

[ibsteve2u]

What stuns me is that when people sing Bill Clinton's praises, they always talk about "the economy that was".

Never a word about how his free trade policies, which lead first to the offshoring of manufacturing jobs (with Bill's "Don't worry, we're turning into a service economy.") and then to the offshoring of the service jobs, are responsible for "the economy that is".

I find it to be distinctly amusing to be fairly certain that he and Hillary plotting their return to the White House at the same time as they were flying around on an Indian software mogul's jets and getting campuses in the nations that have benefited so much from Bill's efforts to offshore the U.S. economy named after them.

[wrabbitt]

We can not afford to have four more years of the Clintons! Did she sit in on meetings when bill was president? Ain't that illegal? But, she's a lawyer and we know she couldn't do anything wrong.Univ­ersal Health Care took a serious hit when Hillary changed her mind and stopped trying to change the system,and became part of it when she took $800,000 to shut up. How much would it take now to have her just go away? You think things are bad now? If people lose a faith in change and she gets elected we are in deep shit!

[deminmo]

Maybe the most telling fact of Hillary's
campaign is her inability to shut her husband
up. Does she really think he will shut up if
she becomes President? Then again, a White
House fight and divorce might be fun!

[Democrab]

I, for one am interested in anything Bill Clinton says.

I don't want him to go quietly into retirement.

I want him to continue to open his big mouth until people finally get it.

Bill Clinton knows how to run a country,
and he'll be out front for Hillary now and in her ear when she wins the presidency.

That sounds pretty good to me.

[kithogan]

If Hillary wins, it will give the convicted liar a third term in OUR white house! THEY must be stopped! Enough is enough. they need to shut up and go home.....w­hy isn't Hillary doing her job in the US Senate? Bill wants this badly and as always, she goes along for the power.They are a dangerous couple.