Former President Bill Clinton made the argument on Thursday that the constitutional amendment applying term limits to presidents could use revision.
Speaking to MSNBC's Morning Joe, the 42nd President made the pitch that presidents should be allowed to serve a third or even fourth term in office but only after they took time off following their second term. The rule change, if one were to take place, shouldn't apply to him. "It should be all forward-looking so no one would think it is personal," he said.
But with a nod to longer life-expectancies and the recognition that certain pols have more to offer than eight-years of service, Clinton noted that "there's an argument" to be made that the 22nd Amendment to the constitution got it wrong, at least on certain grounds.
Scarborough: Doesn't it make sense for this country to say, okay, let a guy serve or a woman serve for eight years, then they can take a term or two off. But then if they have something to give back to America in the terms of leadership, give them that opportunity. This seems so short-sided just because republicans were upset that FDR was president for four terms.
Clinton: Well, that's what I believe the rule should be. But it isn't what it is. That is, if I were writing the rules, I think there was a very strong argument for telling -- for saying you shouldn't serve three terms in a row.... People get relaxed, there's too much opportunity for people -- even if not for corruption -- just for bad things happening for the taxpayers by the same crowd being in all the time. But with life expectancy being so long and people being alert until they're in their 70s and sometimes in their 80s. Look at Paul Volcker, mid-80s, you know, he might as well be 40 years old in some ways, I think there's an argument for that. And if we change the constitution it shouldn't apply to me. That is, it shouldn't apply to anybody who served. It should be all forward-looking so no one would think it is personal. But that's kind of what I think it should be.