From: mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us (Matthew Staben)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitutio
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:43:25 GMT
Organization: Waffle BBS at CompuTech Spokane, Washington


 
In article <y7D8RB1w165w@comtch.spk.wa.us> I wrote:
 
%>Support for precisely the opposite [of term limits] exists in the 
%>constitution.  Supreme Court Justices come to mind.  However, 
%>the one office in which term limits is justified (Chief 
%>Executive), is it implemented.  Reagan, Lyndon B. Johnson, and 
%>last but not least, Madison; have shown this [term limits] to be 
%>A Good Thing.
 
To which dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) 
sent me mail consisting of the below: (his link was down...)
 
>I fail to see a significant justification for term limits for the
>executive as opposed to the legislature.  Will you kindly explain
>your reasoning?
 
My reasoning, which I attempted (but abjectedly failed, 
apparently) to support, for the limits in the executive branch 
is that with the advance of the various powers which are given 
the president - the potential for abuse has increased exponentially.  
The difference between the president's and legislature's power 
structure is obvious. Your middle school has texts on this subject.
 
>Also, LBJ as I recall withdrew from Presidential candidacy and
>was NOT effected by term limitations.  Madison was not at all
>restricted; Presidential term limits were introduced into law
>after FDR (during, I believe, Ike's first term).
 
Madison was referred to as being one of the first presidents 
to wield considerable power, by his own doing.  Of course, 
comparing then with now would be blasphemous.  I was not 
referring explicitly to Madison being limited to term limits 
and if it was construed as such, my error is noted.
 
>Part of this discussion (which I excised from this response) was as 
>to whether the framers of the Constitution opposed term limits or
>not.  Certainly THEY did not institute the Presidential term
>limits.
 
Perhaps I was shooting up the wrong vein.  One thing can be 
said, and that is LBJ, Reagan (of the most recent presidents), 
all achieved what every president before, and since will 
attempt to achieve - and that is to increase their own 
powers.  From the Carter presidency to the Bush presidency, it 
is obvious that the powers of the White House have reached 
historical - perhaps unconstitutional - highs.  Fortunately 
Bush has much opposition in Congress so it isn't _really_ out 
of hand.
 
You also are correct in stating that Term Limits for the executive 
branch was introduced far down the road - a fact which I had 
failed to consider (and in fact, *assumed* that they had 
always existed - for the space of that post.)  Because of this 
glaring error, it [the post] should be sent to Brad at 
rec.humor.bloopers.
 
David M. Nieporent of nieportn@phoenix.princeton.edu said, one 
time or another on this issue:
 
:I haven't read Will's book yet, and he presumably develops the idea more
:thoroughly than you report here, but this still seems rather bizarre.
[]
:If there were *no* term limits back then, then you could make the claim
:that the founding fathers would have supported term limits if they had
:thought about them.
 
:But since they HAD thought about them, and explicitly rejected them
:(read the notes on the Constitutional Convention), deliberately leaving
:them out of the Constitution, it seems odd to me to argue that they
:didn't oppose them.
 
Couldn't have said it better, if I do say so myself.
 
                                                

mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us
 
- A warning to anyone, still in command...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc