Should we End Presidential Term Limits?
Articles Blog

Should we End Presidential Term Limits?

August 25, 2019

there there are also some interesting
issues out there and one of them and and this reappears on the show
constantly and it always surprises me doesn’t
always surprised action actually I guess it makes a certain amount a sense that
the people would think that way people call up and they say you know we need
term limits re who is bombs are in there too long and and and of course that’s that was the
republican mantra cut going hun author the third answer for the fourth
the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt Professor Jonathan Xenophon Zimmerman is
online with his professor education history and the director I’ve the history a veg
occasion Department at the Steinhardt school of culture
education and human development now at New York University and steinhart
STI nhar DT doin’ why you dont EDU is the website and professors
Zimmerman welcome to the program thanks for having me thanks for joining
us um you have Britain apiece basically saying
let’s go back to the way it was before I you know by and large the republicans
established term limits after the Roosevelt presidency the the second a frank the franklin
roosevelt presidency a tell us about well you know I’m I wanna go back to the founding fathers
and son Father’s debated this question quite vehemently and obviously there was
strong opinions on both sides but they decided not to limited
constitutional and I think that they were right and their major argument was stated
removes well power from the voters and it also takes away the incentive they fought for what governor Morrison
New York called good behavior are not why should the president be even
accord with the popular will if the populace is not gonna be folding thumbs up or thumbs down course at that
time and to those debates there were not
well-developed political parties and you know but I’ll get argued now it
was lotsa partisanship provided by Big Mike my
point is that you could argue that right now if
President Obama were to suddenly just go off and some totally weird direction as
a lame duck president that it would cause so much harm to the
democratic party that he would be restrained by that and now is not something that was
anticipated at times constitutional convention in fact that’s actually
really interesting point I made I think that there’s something to that but I
would also say that you know the the ER 1 one of the
problems with term limits to use Twitter stratus takes away some restraint on the
governing party remember Saturday to lineup I the president and i think im
seen that in recent months I work with the
president and John Kerry announced iran deal you
can expect people like John McCain to object but if Obama was in term a minute with Bob
Menendez and Chuck Schumer be objecting I don’t think is loudly and the reason
is that you know key the president would remain their standard-bearer and in a
certain way once his term-limited he is up to yeah no i i actually totally agree with their
position and I have said on this program numerous times that I
have two problems term limits one we already have them
they’re called elections and to that that and this probably is it has more to do
with congress than with the with the presidency but I do think that
there is some element of the season the presidency we certainly saw in the third term a Franklin Roosevelt’s
presidency and that is that um there is the AP you know when
somebody comes newly into an office the kinda stumble around for a while and
there needs to be a it you know the the wise elders who have
been there and have been around who can kind of help them and I i guess
in the role president there isn’t so much for that but in congress if you if we were to term-limit congress
in this is what we’ve seen in various states were were the house and senator term-limited
bat permanent infrastructure that but the wise elders who show people where
the levers of power are ends up in the lobbyists absolutely you
know I mean I think that there’s this very naive idea that if we term limits
people that somehow you know they’ll tell they’ll be more
beholden to the people and less beholden to lobbyists but I think the state level
there some evidence suggesting that is precisely handbooks right so a with it when
exactly a forgive my not having look this up in
my little pocket constitution here when
exactly did we amend the Constitution two-term limit the presidency in and
what was all I in 1947 there’s a huge Republican
majority in Congress voted in favor the amendment of course to amend the
Constitution kinda sad states that ratify it so was ratified
until 1951 novel the entitlements presidency while while and at that point there was nobody
was seriously thought Sherman is going to be running for a thorough for terms know but it’s interesting that
issues the republicans won this and it really was a Republican maneuver every
single Republican member of Congress voted for the 22nd amendment up straight party-line severed Anne the
Democrats who supported it we’re really democrats said had broken with FDR the
New Deal it really was a referendum on Roosevelt but what’s fascinating is that assumes
republicans women summer them started out at the doubters include you asked
white David Eisenhower hey I I on the verge of being reelected
56 obviously for the last time because now that the a memory stick and he is
term-limited eisenhower make a statement recorded
directly because I just wish all the term-limit doubters could listen
to this he said silent our United States ought to be able to choose
first present anybody a watch for cordless a number of terms he served I’ve got the utmost faith in the long
term common sense to the american people I’m I take the Eisenhower position mean
yeah I agree with that %uh the flip side to that those the
burlesque on a situation I mean what do you do that you know we arguably no longer have
a Constitution larger democratic republic with a constitutional monarchy the Supreme Court it through the doctor
nagy married to judicial review marberry
versus madison they have taken onto themselves more
power than any other monarchs a European the queen of england does not have the
power to strike down laws or to establish policy like money is
speech in corporations are persons arm he is it not inconceivable that that now that money is speech that
somebody like Silvio Berlusconi who owned more than
ninety percent of all the median Italy could ascend to the presidency and then
use that that wealth and power to to become a perpetual president look
it’s it’s not impossible but I think the
answer to hadline see and creating a new system I the for the way that we to hold pay
for elections for answers not tire hands behind our
back. prima faster say we can’t vote 4x personal can only
vote twice no i i agree with you but but I don’t
see that them in the Supreme Court I can’t let that happen absolutely central one for a democracy
but I don’t think the answer to the problem of democracy is less democracy right agree I agree so so really the the the problem that I
identified as money in politics and that which I’m I’m
pointing to the spring court with that would you agree with that well just in a way you know and and you
know I think they’re dead or politics is broken because the influence a big-money the term limits is not a reasonable
solution to that problem right I agree I think the this effort to
move the Move to Amend on target to amend the Constitution to get around the Supreme Court’s
assertion that you know the money is protected by the First Amendment and the
corporation to protect both of which it managed seems like it at least just a starting
point I’m Park possibly so tied at the end of
the day you know we the people have to give
ourselves maximal decision-making power the way to do that
is to allow ourselves to build anybody that would like gonna okay your
plans for Jonathan’s am Zimmerman professor education history
and into director the history education
program hang on this is the Thom Hartmann program at the
Steinhardt school of culture education and human development new york university thank you professor
for being with us thank you was fun

Only registered users can comment.

  1. I think this idea would have served us much better during the New Deal era rather than now. Could you imagine a Bush, Clinton, or Obama for an indefinite period of time? Nothing but Free-trade agreements, civil liberty violations, drone strikes, continued war on drugs, wars, cuts to entitlement programs, etc.

  2. FDR and the "republicans" huh. It was a Constitutional Amendment for crying out loud, a direct bitch-slap at the legacy of FDR by the American people!
    You're such a dishonest little creep Thom.

  3. No, but elections should be held every three years, the president should have a 6 year term and a two term limit for a total of 12 years, house members should be increased from 535 to 540 with 1/3 being elected every 3 years with 4 term limit for a total of 12 years… and four more states should be created for a total of 108 senators, 1/3 being elected every 3 years with a 9 year term and a one term limit and the supreme court members should still be appointed but have a 12 year term with a two term limit for a total of 24 years. Just thinking out loud, lol.

  4. Term limits for presidents of the US were made to eliminate the anti-establishment, anti-globalist presidents. If people didn't like the president after a decade or two, then just reelect someone else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *