Someone raised a question of what would it take to term-limit the President to (1) six year term.
The 22nd Amendment limits the President to (two) four-year terms. It would have to be repealed and a new Amendment written with the new six-year term limit.
I’m not sure if they could repeal the 22nd and write the new term limit in one Amendment, or if it would take an Amendment to repeal the 22nd and then another Amendment to set the limit at one six-year term.
If it was decided that it would take two Amendments, there is a danger.
Current Constitutional law calls for the Amendments to be ratified by two-thirds of the House and Senate respectively. The Amendments then have to be ratified by three quarters of the states in order to go into effect.
With two Amendments, what happens if the repealing of the 22nd Amendment is approved and goes into effect, but the “six-year term” Amendment fails? The end result…no term limits for the President whatsoever. He/she could serve as many terms as they wanted, depending on the voters. With someone as popular as Bill Clinton was (bleah!) he could still be in power today.
That’s my take on the procedural side of it.
Some would argue that a single term would allow a President to get more work done instead of having to campaign in his/her fourth year of their first term.
Others would argue that the President should follow the example of George Washington and only run for two terms. Which is better?
No comments:
Post a Comment