"No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once."
It is this part of Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment that limits all presidents to just two terms in office. The 22nd amendment was ratified by the States on February 27, 1951. The amendment ensured that no one (except Harry Truman) could ever duplicate the four term Presidency Franklin Roosevelt had served. While many supported it then, and most still do today, there are some who believe that a President should be allowed to serve more than two terms. So I enter the debate, should Presidential terms be limited? Should we deny the American people from choosing a leader they think is successful more than twice? These questions may not seem like anyone would take them up seriously but some people have. Several congressman have proposed repealing the amendment at least a dozen times since 1995. Even Ronald Reagan supported abolishing term limits in his post-president years. While no proposals have ever made it out of committee (and it is unlikely they ever will) it is still an issue that triggers a lively debate. it is also an issue that I want to have a solid opinion on.
Why I Believe Term Limits Should be In place
The argument of some including Alexander Hamilton and Ronald Regan is that term limits prevent the American people from rewarding leaders they believe are successful. Also with term limits a second term presidents is a lame duck from the time he begins his second term as everyone knows he will leave office in four years. Also because they have no elections left to run for, second term presidents care less of what the public opinion think of them and their policies and therefore are more likely to become brewed in scandals or make unpopular decisions regarding policy. On the other side of the argument people say that removing term limits could result in one person being president for decades and that this would stifle the democracy the founding fathers intended to build. A democracy where a common man is elected to serve in the government for a few years and then go home, a democracy without career politicians. But could there ever be a president for life or a multiple term President as long as we continue to hold elections every four years?
Both sides have a good argument. But ultimately I think establishing term limits was the right thing to do. The idea that elections would prevent an unwanted long term presidency is not as powerful a factor as it may seem. The longer one remains an incumbent the more power and influence they gain, weather its through force or providing for others using the power of their position. A great example is Egypt, its clear now that President Mubarak wasn't very popular with the Egyptian people. But then how could the man win five terms as President and serve for over thirty years? Because of his power as an incumbent. Because he continued to impose Marshall Law on Egypt after the assignation of Anwar Sadat he had the power to imprison political opponents, bribe voters, and command advertisement outlets. Many people say this can't happen in the United States because of the freedoms our Constitution protects, but it does happen, just in a different form. Today we still have senators like John Mccain, Joe Leiberman, and Barbara Mikulski who that have served for decades. How have they remain in office for so long? Because of their power as incumbents. Over time incumbents are able to build up their political machines and support bases. Since they have influence on a national level they are able to provide benefits and rewards to those who support them. Eventually their power reaches a point were no one can challenge them and win. With this power and influence some politicians are able to stay in office for life. Senators like Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy remained in office until they died because they were politically impossible to challenge. The same is for our only president to serve more than two terms, Franklin Roosevelt. Despite the war in Europe as being a reason for his election to a third term, his New Deal benefits which many people depended on, created and enviorment were he couldn't lose.This is why term limits our important, they prevent career politicians and create a government where power and alliances our less of a concern, also the limited time in office acts as an incentive for those who wish to pass certain legislation and reforms to work quickly. This is why I think we should consider reestablishing term limits in Congress. I believe it would greatly benefit the American people and the government. As for those who argue that presidents and politicians in their final terms are lame ducks and are more likely to become involved in scandals as they no longer care about what the public thinks of them i have two points. First, the office of an elected official is influential is as much as the person holding it. Regardless of how much time they have in office a true leader can make a major impact on the decision making process. Second, if an official decides to do something he know is wrong because he won't be affected by any political fall out, should not have been elected in the first place. While seeking another term might impact the timing of their decisions, elections cannot change a person.
This is my opinion on weather we should have term restrictions, but I want to hear your ideas to so please comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment