Posted on 11/30/2013 7:35:40 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
An op-ed in the Washington Post went viral this week as it drew controversy advocating for an end to presidential term limits.
In the piece, bluntly titled “End presidential term limits,” New York University history professor Jonathan Zimmerman suggests that the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms of office should be repealed as a way to assuring a more effective presidency and protecting democracy from a leader without fear of voters’ wrath.
Citing the treatment of President Obama in the wake of his troubled Affordable Care Act rollout and a nuclear deal with Iran, Zimmerman argued that if Obama could run again, he might not be facing such “fervent objections” on the former from Democratic leaders like Bill Clinton; and, on the latter, from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).
“Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear,” Zimmerman wrote, adding that a term-limited president does not “have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all.”
“If he chooses,” the professor continued, “[a term-limited president] could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?”
Ultimately, Zimmerman concluded:
It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.
What do you think? Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed and presidential term limits be overturned? Take our poll below:
Repeal Presidential Term Limits?
Yes
No
Funny.
I have been demanding for a long time that presidents be restricted to a single term Guess we can compromise and keep it at two.
To see the idiot’s favorability descend into the single digits...
Every second term of a Democrat we get the same story. It will not happen. Besides, pResident Cloward-Piven doesn’t need a third term to overwhelm the system. We have already gone past the point of no return.
Ping Dynachrome!
I knew that this impostor would want a third term or probably a term for life if he can pull it off.
What this fool doesn’t realize is that if we did change the Constitution, then Bill Clinton would be reelected until his death by the blacks and women in this country. Had such a changed happened 14 years ago, Barack Obama would still be a “community organizer” in Chicago.(A silver lining? LOL)
But this is just my opinion about two voting groups in this country.
It sounds as though the commie piggies down at the WaPo are into kings, queens, emperors and dictators. They just can’t help themselves. What a bunch of fascist retards.
They could at least publish such an editorial when we have a President who isn’t a bucket of scum.
Not without repealing the 16th and 17th.
i’m for making EVERY elected office one-term only
Obama plans to never leave the WH while there’s anyone alive in the US. And his accomplices plan to help him.
What you need is millions of Daleks.
LOL, laugh ping!
Argues that Obama would be a better POTUS in his second term if he thought he would/could get a himself third term, and on and on.
Add this to the repeal 17th idea list.
Professional politicians are destroying the REPUBLIC.
Won’t happen because 8 years is more than enough. After the last 3 two-termers, one 6-year term and out looks better.
Clinton fatigue.
Bush fatigue.
Obama fatigue (and he still has 3 years to go).
8 year is more than enough.
coulldn’t we ELIMINATE some of these offices?..
I’ll bet this guy’s quiet on the issue when a Republican’s in his second term.
This is like saying that a crimnal engaged in mugging and robbing you is only taking everything he can because he knows he won’t be able to come back tomorrow for more.
It’s your fault he takes it all at the first opportunity because your laws are restrictive and force him to get it while he can.
After all, the criminal wouldn’t take everthing he could get his hands on if he had your assurances he could come back and rob you again, and again, and again without fear of being stopped.
NO 77.52%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.