Repealing the 22nd Amendment?

This idea comes up in every Congress. But something surprised me this time.

From Carpet Bagger Report:

I know this probably isn't going anywhere, but it's good to see the discussion unfold anyway.

House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) introduced bipartisan legislation today to repeal the 22nd amendment, which states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." Representatives Berman (D-CA), Pallone (D-NJ), Sabo (D-MN) and Sensenbrenner (R-WI) joined Hoyer in sponsoring the resolution. Representative Hoyer released the following statement regarding the resolution:

"I introduced today a joint resolution to repeal outright the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment requires that no person who has served two terms, or who has served more than two years of another President's term and their own elected term, be permitted to serve another term of office.

"The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.

"Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future."

This same bi-partisan group seems to unveil this proposal in every Congress, and it never goes anywhere, but I nevertheless like their idea and their tenacity.

There's no reason to deny voters' rights in this area. We can re-elect members of Congress to our hearts' content, we can even re-elect the same person to be vice president indefinitely. Yet voters are denied the chance to elect someone to the presidency more than twice. This doesn't do anyone any favors, especially second-term presidents who find their "lame-duck" status makes them far less effective.

I'm not optimistic about this proposal going anywhere, but it's encouraging to see it in play again.

I was surprised that so many Democrats were involved. Yeah, the Republicans would run Bush for a third term, but we would run Bill Clinton.

Now, for the record, I am against this idea. I don't think political monarchies are worth of a Republic. As it is, over the course of 20 years, between 1989 and 2009, the White House has been held by 2 families. In 2008 it is likely that we will have Sen. Clinton running from New York, and who knows, maybe even Gov. Bush of Florida.

The idea that 2 families could control the executive branch of our government for a generation is on the face of it, bad for our country.

The idea that it is undemocratic, I just don't by it.

First off, we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

That's an important distinction.

We need a change in people and ideas in Congress and the White House to keep from becoming stagnant as a society.

We need creativity. We need new ideas.

Consentrations of power in the hands of a few powerful families will suffocate freedom. If that is our aim, let's just set up a Quadrumvirate made up of The Kennedys, The Bushes, The Rockafellers, and The Clintons.

We'll put those four families on an estate in the middle of Montana and let them issue decrees.

You need a guy like Gerald Ford at times. Someone serious and trustworthy but who doesn't necessarily want the job. Someone who will act dutifully and reasonably but isnt' acting in the manner that indicates they are more interested in holding on to power than working for the greater good.

I know I just said I would accept Hillary as the nominee, and I think she would do a good job, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't like the concept.

Ask the Lancasters and the Yorks about families in politics.

-The Oklahoma Hippy