[–] 14471253? 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The first goal -- Congressional term limits -- ought to be replaced with repeal of Presidential term limits.
We don't limit our Hatches and Grassleys to match their Schumer/Pelosis.
Here's what I read somewhere:
Federalist 72 strongly suggests the 22nd Amendment – limiting Presidents to two terms – merits reconsideration, since it permanently altered the Constitution to include the term limits the Founders specifically rejected, as Federalist 72 makes clear.
The first Presidents established a two-term tradition but left the Constitution unchanged.
It was not until Franklin Roosevelt that a President served more than two terms, but the official commencement of war in Europe in 1939 gave rise to the circumstances which were cited as grounds warranting a third term in 1940. Whatever one thinks of FDR's service as President, the circumstances then could reasonably have led the People to re-elect him.
It is indisputable that Hamilton would argue for repeal of Amendment XXII.
It is a limitation on the right of the People to have a controlling voice over who will be their President.
It is an amendment responsive to the personal circumstances of FDR and the rise of popularly-elected tyrants in foreign countries, rather than to any defect in the Constitution.
Hamilton argued there will be circumstances where a third term is warranted.
Take the example of our current President, who appears an exemplar of the model Chief Executive Hamilton described in #F70.
Even his most ardent opponents must concede the unprecedented resistance in Congress to the President's agenda, which was fully disclosed before the 2016 election, and approved by a substantial majority of State electors (see F68 to understand why the Electoral College remains another brilliant innovation of our Constitution).
Due to delays caused by opposition, the 45th President will have lost two years of unfettered use of his majority by the 2018 midterm elections, and under the usual play-out of eight-year administrations, the years 2023-2024 also will be lost in the drama of the 2024 Election.
That would, as a practical matter, leave four years for full implementation of the POTUS 45 agenda, a wasteful result under any view of the Executive.
The option of seeking a third term would a powerful tool of the Executive.
At a minimum, it would tend to avoid wasteful inaction of the final two years of a necessarily-final term.
A third term for the President was approved by the Founders and authorized by the Constitution.
Amendment XXII ought to be repealed.
Congressional Term Limits.
If Hamilton disapproved of any Presidential term limit, logically he would likely disapprove any limit on a lesser office.
Limits on the power of the People to select their favorites is disfavored.
Actually, all the reasons above disfavoring Presidential term limits apply with greater force to selection of the People's direct representatives in the Congress.
If the problem is graft, voter fraud, or some other wicked enterprise, the remedy is to eliminate the bad actors without restricting the People's right to select the representative of their choice.
The voters of the State of California enacted legislative term limits in the hope it would curtail the power of the then-current Speaker of the Assembly, from a "safe" legislative district in San Francisco.
While the new term limits did remove that Speaker, he was replaced by a series of shorter-term autocrats with similar policies. The current trend in favor of Congressional term limits also started with opposition to a Speaker from San Francisco.
Enacting a Constitutional Amendment based on opposition to that individual will prove as unwise as the California experiment and Amendment XXII.
[–] 14475231? [S] ago
"Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics."
Is this what the President is working on now?