I'll go first, sans legal prose. The Presidential Term + Pardon Powers Amendment:
1. The 22nd Amendment shall be modified so that no person shall be elected more than twice in a row. A president shall be not be prohibited from holding the presidency after two terms provided that four years has passed since the end of their last term.
2. Congress may override any presidential pardon by simple majority vote of each house within ninety days of said pardon. Acceptance of a pardon shall be deemed guilt by the recipient. As such, a pardon recipient may also override the pardon within ninety days of same.
Why, you ask?
Though I am no friend of President Bush, I really feel like he was hamstrung early in his second by his lame duck status. Think about it - no one has really had a strong second term since the 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951.
It's not that I think we need people to serve three or four terms. I think that a president's political vitality will remain in place if all of DC's players know that they could be a factor in the years ahead. Right now, a president loses his mojo right away in term two since all the players know his days are numbered. Everyone else could be around for a long time. Congressional leaders seem to easily trump the Oval Office during second terms. We are unintentionally handicapping our leader.
By the way - I think third terms would be EXTREMELY rare - but the possibly would keep all the players (politicians, staff, lobbyists, everybody) on their toes.
Why the pardon component? Clinton obviously abused the power of the pardon when he left office and both Bushes provided pardons/clemency to political allies for crimes while in office. In this day and age, defendant's have myriad protections throughout the legal process. Our current system creates the appearance of corruption if not the fact.
Marc Rich? C'mon. I don't care if Ehud Barak pleaded on his behalf. It stunk. It has been said that his ex-wife is one of the largest contributors to the Clinton Library.
The Scooter Libby clemency order may well have been intended to keep him quiet. It certainly appeared that way. We are the greatest nation in the world - we should not let such an opportunity for corruption remain.
By the way - I think that the vast majority of pardons will not be overridden. Why would they? Only a small percentage have held the appearance of politics or corruption. Lets get that number down to zero.
So - What is your amendment?
7 comments:
Girls cover you ears.
Richie, you just want to have sex with Billie, don't you. Your golden era of increased taxes and no deficit just makes you all hot and creamy, dosen't it? Richie, Billie is gone, so is the ICE lady, replaced by an even bigger socialist, who lies almost as well to a populace who has been conditioned to listen to his crap. Except "O" may not have a organized Republican base to keep him in line. Talk about the fox watching the chicken coop. You really think the Dem's are going to curtail spending, you smoking crack dude.
And keeping with a tradition of answering questions: I would give the President the line item veto.
I would also raise the retirement age to 72, make all folks pay "some" income taxes, mandate health saving accounts and privitize social security.
I also hate the DH rule and love long hot kisses, no wait, that's Bull Durhan.
President Clinton abused the pardoning power more than any other President in modern times. Had Hillary become the nominee this would have hurt her greatly.
I do not believe the President's lame duck status is based mostly on the two term rule. I believe it is more due to the fact that there are not term limits on Congress. The partisanship in Congress is out of control. Many on both sides are totally corrupt and are more interested in sucking money from the taxpayers for stupid pet projects than they are interested in the good of the country. The current rules make it too hard to defeat a sitting Congressman and therfore need to be changed. Jefferson once said that "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for". Since they will never vote to change the rules we need to pass an amendment to put in term limits for Congressman as well. This would end the super powerful Congressman who have risen to this level based on seniority. Say two terms for a senator which is still twelve years and 3 terms for a house member, or six years. Then we would have a max of six for a representative, eight for the President and twelve for a Senator. To make it more symetric I might be willing to go five terms for a Representative or ten years max.
Jim:
If I were as metro as you, I'd avoid all homo-political references.
To the extent that Obama is a socialist, McCain is a fascist (of course, neither label is remotely accurate).
I have answered all answer-worthy questions.
I'm the biggest deficit hawk that you know, however, I don't support the line item veto. Earmarks and the like are bad, however, they don 't add up to a great deal of money. Look at the pie - entitlements, interest (thanks GOP!), and defense spending (=± top the rest of the world combined) is where the money and potential savings rests.
I agree about 72 for SS + Medicare - lets raise it 3 months a year beginning now.
I agree with your point about income taxes from all - if only a 1% rate at the bottom. We are all in this together. No free rides.
Privatize social security? Do you pay attention to anything? SSA needs to fund the trust fund with real assets.
I think that HSAs should be a key component of wholesale health care reform - along with universal coverage. Not as a right - as good policy. Lets create a more efficient system that eats up the same or less of GDP and offers a basic safety net for all.
I too hate the DH and I'd love to have my way with Susan Sarandon circa 1980.
By the way, I was not talking about Richard Prior running down the street crack, just the regular stuff.
I cannot believe the Lib's are not jumping all over this one. The whole point if for government not to become too powerful. We need less Mojo, not more.
Mark:
I don't think that all of Clinton's pardons combined were as much of an abuse as the Scooter Libby clemency. I had a hunch we'd disagree.
Term limits? You'll note that effort became a dead issue after the GOP took the House in 1994. The whole movement was intended to pave the way for Gingrich to take the speaker's seat. Once accomplished, the term limit movement died.
I think that you + I agree about the entrenchment of incumbents and the problems that causes. I think this is a problem with redistricting. With so many safe seats, the vast majority of office holders are beholden to their party's base rather than the whole constituency. This is very unhealthy and the primary reason for our polarization. There are ways to solve the problem, however, it is complex and involves offending a lot of embedded interests on both sides of the aisle.
Jim:
Our founding fathers, in their wisdom, did not include term limits on anyone including the president. They built in many checks and balances. I think they'd have wanted our president to have his mojo.
I know you are scared to death of WJC, however, that is not the purpose of my proposal.
The current prohibition on a third term is very undemocratic. It prevents the American people from selecting the leader of their choice. It doesn't just hamstring a person - it hobbles all of us.
Rich,
You are correct that our founding fathers did not put in any term limits but they also had just fought a Revolutionary War to get rid of being ruled by a monarch. George Washington could have possibly become King if he wanted it but of course we all know he turned it down. Our founding fathers would abhor someone running for the Presidency three straight times. The problem is that so many have become professional politicians in the modern era. Let's face it, it is a great job. Lots of power, prestige and perks with lots of vacation time. That is why term limits are now needed. We have to force these bums on both sides of the aisle back into the real world and stop feeding off of the taxpayer's lactating breast.
Post a Comment