|
|
Speaking at the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum here, Clinton questioned certain aspects of the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents a person from being elected president more than twice.
Clinton said the amendment, passed after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a record fourth term, should be changed simply to keep a person from being elected to more than two consecutive terms as president.
"I think since people are living much longer ... the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime," Clinton said.
The former president said such a change probably wouldn't apply to him but would benefit future generations.
"There may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or 50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before," he said. "People would like to bring that man or woman back but they would have no way to do so."
------------------------
It amazes me how much nonsense this man spews. As if America would have voted him in for a third term? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me three times? "Hello, Pizza Hut? Yes, I'd like to order one frontal lobotomy pizza for the entire nation, hold the anchovies."
What do you think of Clinton's proposal? Good? Bad? Indifferent? Should he just shut up and go away?
Posted by at May 29, 2003 01:33 AM
Comments
Personally, I don't get the two-term restriction in the first place. If a guy (or gal) is doing a fine enough job that the people want to elect him to a third or fourth term, then why not? Because it's not fair to other candidates? Then they should be out there proving themselves. Not fair to the opposing party? That's why they offset Congress and HoR.
Of course, I think Clinton needs to disappear in a hole somewhere, but he does bring up a valid point.
Posted by: Ceezer | June 2, 2003 08:37 AM
Bill clinton couldn't do any more harm with 2 more terms than Bush has done with just a little over 1/2 of one.
However, for the sake of democracy, it's probably just as well that a president only gets a max of 8 years to do good or evil and then pass the torch on.
Posted by: msvid | June 3, 2003 10:29 AM
May I point out that this is actually a bipartisan effort? *Republicans* actually introduced a resolution calling for a repeal of the 22nd amendment in this Congressional session, with a stated aim of keeping Bush in office past the 8 year limit. It hasn't gained much momentum, but give credit where credit is due.
I would also like to point out that even in the midst of impeachment proceedings, Clinton remained one of the most popular Presidents on record. Bush has managed to surpass his popularity due, of course, to war fever, but that may not last.
One last thing: would you kindly add an option to "munge" displayed email addresses?
Posted by: Aaron | June 8, 2003 10:54 PM