[Bruce H]

Clinton Wants Change in Presidential Term Limits


E-Mail This Article

Printer-Friendly Version

Subscribe to The Post





Reuters
Wednesday, May 28, 2003; 8:03 PM



BOSTON (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton said on Wednesday Congress should change the rule that barred him from seeking a third term in the White House, but stopped short of saying he wants to return as commander-in-chief.

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."

Clinton, who left office in 2001, said he had "loved" his time as president but was also enjoying life outside the White House.

"I was surprised at how happy I was to have my life back," he said during a question-and-answer session with presidential historian Michael Beschloss.

Clinton said he was writing his memoirs, which were due to be published in the autumn of 2004, although he said they may be out before then.


Full Legal Notice
© 2003 Reuters


If alien races are monitoring this planet we should be able to hear the laughter.

[QuickDraw]

Clinton, who left office in 2001, said he had "loved" his time as president but was also enjoying life outside the White House.

Boy,is that an understatement!!:scrutiny:


QuickDraw

[CZ-75]

Anybody save Oswald's DNA? I think I know who I'd like to see as the first human clone should Klinton run again. :evil:

[Malone LaVeigh]

I think the Clintons and Bushes are planning to tag-team us until there isn't a drop of freedom left...

[WonderNine]

:D

[JPM70535]

If I never heard the name Clinton again, it would be too soon. He was the greatest embarrasment to this country since Joe McCarthy in the fifties. He would lie when the truth would have served him better, and it was always easy to tell when he was lying because his lips moved. The man has absolutely no morals,
( and no taste in women either ) had no respect for the White House, using it for his personal cat house, ( BJs in the Oval Office )
and to have the gall to state that Oral sex wasn't really sex.

I shudder to think of that Bufoon trying to handle 911. He and his coven of Liberal do-gooders would probably still be trying to decide on how to blame it on the Republicans and the NRA.

I guess by now you must have figured it out, I have no use for anything Clinton. Now all the Demorats can Flame On.

YEA THOUGH I WALK THROUGH THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH I WILL FEAR NO EVIL.

FOR I AM THE MEANEST *** IN THE VALLEY!!!!

[Gordon Fink]

President Reagan said the same thing after he left office. And you know what? They’re both right. Term limits are un-democratic. The 22nd Amendment should be repealed altogether.

~G. Fink

[longeyes]

No matter how great the President we don't need to dip into the same well. The problem with this country is not a lack of qualified people it's the fact that so few of them are willing or able to mount viable campaigns. The people who do are often the last people you want in power.

[Malone LaVeigh]

He actually has a point. I was reminded of the British bringing back Churchill for WWII.

[Tamara]

I was reminded of the British bringing back Churchill for WWII.

"Bringing back"? When had he previously served as prime minister? :scrutiny:

[Malone LaVeigh]

"Bringing back"? When had he previously served as prime minister?Ya got me there. Anyway, I certainly wasn't comparing Clinton to Churchill...

[Delmar]

Sure, why not. We could call it the Monica Amendment:rolleyes:
I think it would be good for the country to have term limits on every elected position whether it be federal, state or local. For every good politician (is there such a thing?), there seems to be 20 more like Teddy the Lifeguard Kennedy and Chuckie the Rat Schumer. Might also be prudent to ban anyone with a law degree from gaining public office as most of them are either failed lawyers or they use their studies to figure out how to thwart the Constitution they have sworn to protect.

[Ol' Badger]

Clinton wants to run again! Jesus what balls.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50846-2003May28.html

[geekWithA.45]

The problem with this country is not a lack of qualified people it's the fact that so few of them are willing or able to mount viable campaigns


I am reminded of another quote:

Those most qualified to wield power rarely seek it.

I'm in the process of reading the Federalist Papers. One of the arguments they make, and one of the weaknesses of our Republic is the notion that somehow, magically, the best talents will be drawn into politics, and that the forces of the vote will cull the poor talents and the power mongers, and promote the best and altruistic.

Unfortunately, with the exception of a few honorable, altruistic folks, those who can best lead often find that the barriers to entry are sufficiently formidable that thier time is better spent in capitalistic pursuits.

I haven't solved the question for myself, but I'm beginning to suspect that a Free Republic, (as opposed to a mere Republic) doesn't scale well with population.

After spending a few minutes poking around the census site, I can't find the fact I'm looking for, which is "What was the overall population, and the voting population of America at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?



As population and complexity increases, mechanisms will evolve to attend to the details of that complexity. In this case, the mechanisms are entrenched, barely discernable political parties that don't adequatley respect the people, or address the substantive underlying issues.

[Waitone]

The dude made it clear he wasn't finished. About a year before his departure he suggested a tour as World President would be approariate. Since at this point there is no such position I assumed it he referred to UN president. Now that the EU is up and running perhaps he wants to try out for that gig.

Meglomaniac.

[jsalcedo]

Clinton said he was writing his memoirs, which were due to be published in the autumn of 2004, although he said they may be out before then.


Look for it in your local adult bookstore.

[Shaggy]

He would'nt think it was such a hot idea as GW Bush runs for his 5 term as President in 2020. ;)

[critter]

FICTION section!

[Coronach]

Dupe threads merged.

Mike

[Pilgrim]

After spending a few minutes poking around the census site, I can't find the fact I'm looking for, which is "What was the overall population, and the voting population of America at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?

The numbers are probably quite low as one of the qualifications to vote was to be a "Man of Property."

[longeyes]

The older I get the more I think William F. Buckley had the right idea when he said we should use the phonebook to randomly select our representatives. We could do a lot worse. And have.

[Joe Demko]

Simple solution: don't vote for him.

[RobW]

It's just a matter of time that they come up with heritable emperorship. Deathknell to all republics: Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Bokassa. May be next W. J. C.?

[rock jock]

One of the arguments they make, and one of the weaknesses of our Republic is the notion that somehow, magically, the best talents will be drawn into politics
You fail to consider the possibility that this holds true even today. I know we love to bash politicians here, and many of them richly deserve it, but the underlying assumption is that there are much more qualified folks out there that just don't run or don't make it through the campiagn process. I'm not so sure this is true. I can think of several examples of people that are very articulate and have strong convictions about liberty and the Constitution, but that can't manage, or can't work with others because of their forceful personalities. They might make great dictators, but in a representative government where charisma and an affable nature are often as important as vision in getting your policies passed, they fail miserably. IOW, the very qualities that make them attractive as leaders make them poor politicians, and vice versa. When you do find someone with that rare mix of both assertiveness and charm, like Colin Powell for example or even GW Bush, they often don't reflect your political views, or at least the views of enough of the population that will get them elected. We all like to think that the world would be so much better off if only we were in charge, but what makes you think you wouldn't be as much of a politician as Clinton or GW if you did hold the reins of power?

[Kaylee]

I'd say if term limits are a good idea anywhere, it's in the Presidency. And this is why..

.. people in general WANT a charismatic monarch. They might not admit it, but even in America that's what our constant attentions to the Presidency (and confusions about his powers) indicate. People in general I think just plain want a Big Daddy to take care of everything.. and it's easier to think that way when one guy sits in the Oval Office all your adult life.

The lack of term limits at the executive level ENCOURAGES people to think in terms of a reigning monarch, not a temporary servant of the people. The purpose of the executive is to provide a check on the legislative branch's power, and to make sure we run somewhat efficiently in times of war. That's it.


Further, I don't buy "just vote him out" for the same reason I don't buy putting the Bill of Rights up for majority vote.. because the minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Well, that and FDR. *shudder*


-K

[foghornl]

My only vote for a former Arkansas Klinton, whether it be ******* or Slicky Britches would be for second level 5th alternate 3rd shift Baghdad sewer worker.

And Slicky Britches is certainly full of something

[fallingblock]

Especially the last bit:

"Further, I don't buy "just vote him out" for the same reason I don't buy putting the Bill of Rights up for majority vote.. because the minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Well, that and FDR. *shudder*"


:D :D

[Mike Irwin]

The truly disgusting part of this is that he likely would win a third term.

[Calanctus]

I'm reminded of the quote from Douglas Adams:

"Anyone who has the power to get themselves elected, should under no circumstances be permitted to hold the job."

[hops]

Just think. Klinton vs Klinton in the Democratic primary of 2008. If would be 1908 Taft vs Roosevelt in the Republican Primary all over again.

[geekWithA.45]

Oh, and btw,

WHO CARES what Klinton wants? It's a sideshow!

Ex presidents have no special power to propose amendments. They have exactly the same power we do, the only differences are:


I proposed Amendment 28: The Liberty Restoration Amendment. It's a goulish good idea, of benefit to all Americans, involving horsewhipping of elected officials for not paying attention to the rest of the document. No one's gonna listen to me, though, except maybe some of ya'll.

Klinton proposes something of benefit only to him, and he get press time, and a 4 page discussion on THR.

[Drizzt]

http://www.suntimes.com/images3/higgins/higgins35001.gif

I would have posted the cartoon itself, but I'm trying to watch the language....

[Mike Irwin]

Churchill served twice as First Lord of the Admiralty, first in 1911 until 1915, when the Dardanelles campaign caused his downfall, the second time 1939 to 1940 in response to increasing calls for him to be brought back into the Government as one of the only officials who had refused to kowtow to conventional British government thinking that Hitler wasn't a danger.

He served as Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945, and then again from 1951 to 1955.

An important distinction that needs to be made is that there are no limits on how long a British Prime Minister can serve during a single term, nor are there any limits on how many times he can come back into office. As long as he's leader of his party when it comes into power during an election, he becomes Prime Minister.

For example, Gladstone was PM 4 times, Harold McMillen was PM 3 times, IIRC.

In other words, Britain isn't America, so any attempts to draw parallels really don't work.

[TimH]

Well maybe somebody has already said this ( I'm too tired to read all the posts ) but if they get a constitutional convention together to change the 22nd amendment they'll be going after the 2nd amendnment also.

[BowStreetRunner]

I have thought for a while that those best stuited for power are those who dont want it
Slick Willy wants power and more and more of it
term limits are a good thing....in my humble opinion
BSR

[standingbear]

what kind of ego trip has willy been on?i find him amusing as well as repulsive in that he thinks he can rewrite our constitution to better fit humanity just so he can run again.hes a legend in his own mind.he utterly disgusts me with his lies,cheating on his spouse and playing honest americans for a fool on national television.ignore him,maybe hell just go away.:fire: