What are your thoughts on removing the term limit on the president?
Again mixed. The basic principle is the same -- term limits are a fairly clumsy way to fight the incumbency effect. But I'm a bit more sympathetic to it in the case of the President, simply because I suspect that humans are deep-down hard-wired to like Kings, so there's a danger there. Also, the President has a little more power to steer things than any individual legislator.
That said, I'm not really attached to the presidential term limit, and there is excellent reason to believe that it is unnecessary. Given that we got through 150 years before it became a problem, it looks to me like the system is reasonably well-designed to function without them. I mean, it's worth keeping in mind that the term limits were introduced mainly to deal with FDR, one of those examples of a President who might well have been worthwhile to keep around had he lived. Signs are that the system works, terms limits or no. History indicates that it requires a truly extraordinary person to get elected President more than twice in the face of a fickle electorate.
My only reason to put them in the constitution is prevent future legal attacks on them (sure, you could try to repeal the amendment, but that is much harder then filing yet another lawsuit)
I understand, but that's not what the constitution is really for. It's about stating the underlying philosophical principles that the laws are based on, not a way to make "harder" laws. It's notable that good constitutional amendments (such as the Bill of Rights) are generally broad, sweeping, and require thought and interpretation. Bad ones (such as Prohibition) are precisely these issue-of-the-moment attempts to write "big law".
(The sections of the constitution about election mechanisms are conspicuous precisely in that they are an exception to this principle. That's because you have to have the *system* pretty carefully locked-down, or it's too easy to abuse it. It's a remarkably insightful design, really.)
If you use the constitution as simply another law book, you cheapen it, and turn it into a political football. I despise it when the right tries to do that, and just as much so when the left does...
no subject
Again mixed. The basic principle is the same -- term limits are a fairly clumsy way to fight the incumbency effect. But I'm a bit more sympathetic to it in the case of the President, simply because I suspect that humans are deep-down hard-wired to like Kings, so there's a danger there. Also, the President has a little more power to steer things than any individual legislator.
That said, I'm not really attached to the presidential term limit, and there is excellent reason to believe that it is unnecessary. Given that we got through 150 years before it became a problem, it looks to me like the system is reasonably well-designed to function without them. I mean, it's worth keeping in mind that the term limits were introduced mainly to deal with FDR, one of those examples of a President who might well have been worthwhile to keep around had he lived. Signs are that the system works, terms limits or no. History indicates that it requires a truly extraordinary person to get elected President more than twice in the face of a fickle electorate.
My only reason to put them in the constitution is prevent future legal attacks on them (sure, you could try to repeal the amendment, but that is much harder then filing yet another lawsuit)
I understand, but that's not what the constitution is really for. It's about stating the underlying philosophical principles that the laws are based on, not a way to make "harder" laws. It's notable that good constitutional amendments (such as the Bill of Rights) are generally broad, sweeping, and require thought and interpretation. Bad ones (such as Prohibition) are precisely these issue-of-the-moment attempts to write "big law".
(The sections of the constitution about election mechanisms are conspicuous precisely in that they are an exception to this principle. That's because you have to have the *system* pretty carefully locked-down, or it's too easy to abuse it. It's a remarkably insightful design, really.)
If you use the constitution as simply another law book, you cheapen it, and turn it into a political football. I despise it when the right tries to do that, and just as much so when the left does...