Left-leaning comedian/political commentator Bill Maher actually said something thought-provoking about the presidency. He suggests amending the Constitution so that future presidents only serve one six-year term. Politico reported that Maher wrote about his proposal last Tuesday.
He said that presidents spend much of their first term campaigning for the second and that by the time they get reelected, they’re about to become a lame duck.
“Everybody agrees they have maybe two years to get anything accomplished, and then people stop returning their calls,” Maher blogged, adding later: “This is why there are so many second-term scandals: boredom.”
He continued: “Why not give presidents one six-year term where they don’t have to worry about re-election or raising money or anything but trying to pass the test of history? Especially since they really only have six years anyway, and then the next election starts.”
Maher said that if he had his way, President Barack Obama would’ve gotten more done in his first term on issues like gay marriage and gun control.
However, in typical Maher fashion, he concluded that Republicans wouldn’t have tried to destroy the economy to prevent Barack Obama’s re-election.
I’m no fan of amending the Constitution for trivial reasons, especially when it concerns the Bill of Rights. It’s a document that wasn’t meant to be fungible. Just as it’s hard to ram through legislation that will change the social dynamics of this country, the Founders made sure it was even harder to change the Constitution in order to prevent tyrannical majorities. Nevertheless, Maher’s post actually is a discussion worth having regarding the 22nd Amendment.
Historically, a president’s second term is usually fraught with disappointment, scandal, controversy, or a toxic combination of all three. Eisenhower’s second term administration 1958 recession that decimated Republicans in the midterms. Nixon was forced to resign the presidency when Watergate, and other felonious activities from his political team were exposed. Reagan had to maneuver through Iran-Contra Affair, which exposed the administration’s operations to circumvent Congress – and the Boland Amendment – which had virtually cut off funding to the anti-communist Contras forces in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton had problems with the interns. In all, government during a second term administration have been lackluster at best.
I agree with Maher that Presidents would be able to be more aggressive in their agendas, and focus solely on governing the country. They wouldn’t be trying to juggle those responsibilities, fundraising, and endless meetings about how to slice and dice the country in order to get 270 electoral votes.
Then again, what would’ve happened with the Iraq Surge? George W. Bush would’ve been making preparations to leave the White House by the time he addressed the nation about the new strategy in January of 2007. For argument’s sake, let’s say Sen. Barack Obama was elected president in the 2006. How would he have handled the surge? So far, Obama’s Afghan Surge has been an abject failure. Furthermore, how would’ve Obama handled, hypothetically, the 2008 financial crisis? Would he have pushed for nationalization of the banks? Would he have lobbied harder for a trillion dollar stimulus? How about single-payer health care, or a new assault weapons ban? With no need to mobilize for a re-election campaign, Obama would’ve been more aggressive – and more liberal – with his policy initiatives. It would be the same for any future chief executive after him.
I’m not saying that I’m for the change, but we should at least have an honest debate about it. As we progress into the future, it’s inevitable that another Barack Obama will emerge from the cesspool of American progressivism, and mount a campaign for the presidency. If he – or she – wins, this neo-Obama could be more liberal than the first. Do conservatives want to endure eight years of hell, or six?
Better plan: repeal the amendment limiting how many times a President may be elected.
Every time someone comes up with a Brilliant New Plan to tweak the organization of government as originally envisioned in the Constitution, they screw it up.
Bad idea. Term limits for President were enacted to prevent another occurance of a 4 term presidency like FDR’s. Sure, without the amendment we may have had (in theory) 16-20 years of Reagan, BUT, do we want to run the risk of 20-32 years of Obama, or someone like him?
No, not bad idea. Good idea. Every time we’ve tried to slap a “quick fix” on the Constitution, we’ve gotten worse problems. The best example of this is direct election of Senators—a “Progressive” initiative that was designed to undercut rural political machines, and which now ensures that Senators elected by the popular vote are the creatures of Leftist urban machines.
Get rid of the limitation on Presidential re-elections. And get the fatassed right to realize that it cannot lie supine every alternate eight years waiting for its turn to come up again.
[Bill Maher Has an Idea that’s Actually Not Crazy]
No, it’s stupid and not worth discussing. All this has been discussed before. For one, if two four year terms is a six term for the reasons Maher gives, then a six year term will be a four year term for the same reasons. Just because some people skipped the last discussion of it or lost their notes on it, doesn’t mean we ought to discuss it again because some loud mouth idiot brings it up again.
And to tell the truth, I’m more than a little tired of the constant drumbeat for a system whereby we have a single, more powerful executive who’ll get things done, especially when it comes to domestic affairs. It’s Congress’ responsibility to set policy and I’m against letting them slough off their authority onto the President and avoid responsibility in order to keep their jobs as safe as can be.
How about limiting the time a celebrity may appear in the public eye to six years?
So Maher has read the Confederate Constitution. It gave the President a single 6 year term.
I’ve supported the idea for some time. If a President turns out to be really bad in office, there is always impeachment and there will be House and Senate elections in the mean time to oppose him. However, Presidents have over time given themselves far more power than the Constitution allows. That means they would have to be put back in their place. That could be done by banning czars or the equivalent and cutting most of the Executive bureaucracies or severing them from the Executive. Executive Orders have also taken on far greater force than was intended and they would have to be reined in as well. Ditto with all the “Rule making” that comes from the Executive, particularly under Obama.
First, and probably last, time I agree with Bill Maher.
Bill Maher — the living embodiment of stopped clocks.