Curtis Harris
Surprise! Bill Clinton wants to be President again
By Curtis Harris
Enough about Bill Clinton, but the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is worth some discussion.
Our Constitution created three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The power of each branch was defined by the functions assigned to it, producing a balance of power in the federal government.
Presidents limited themselves to two terms until Franklin D. Roosevelt held the office from 1933-1945. He died early in his fourth term. FDR should be remembered for three initiatives. First, he led a major expansion of the federal government intended to end the Great Depression. Second, he tried to expand the size of the Supreme Court in order to pack it with judges friendly to his socialist agenda. Third, he violated the Presidential two-term tradition. The appropriate response of the states and the Congress to the possibility of future presidents like FDR was to enact, on February 27th, 1951, the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms.
The 22nd Amendment corrected part of a basic error by America's founders when they wrote the Constitution. They did not limit the terms of federal officials. Presidents, Senators, and Representatives could serve as long as they could win elections. Supreme Court Justices served for life. The Founders, creating the Constitution during the late 1700s, did not expect a problem to develop. To them, public service was a temporary duty that took one away from real life. Also, life expectancy was short. Death was a sufficient limit on political and judicial careers.
Modern America is blessed with much longer life expectancies and cursed with career politicians. The 22nd Amendment fixed the problem in one branch of the federal government. It also created an 'imbalance of power.' Presidential terms are limited. Terms in the Congress and the Supreme Court are not. In past columns, I have argued for term limits on the members of Congress. The key issue is that the Congress will not put limits on itself. Evidently, what is good for Presidents is not good for the Congress. Given the current state of American politics, changes to the lifetime terms of the Supreme Court justices also deserve consideration.
The Supreme Court is designed to keep the other two branches of government within the rules set by our Constitution. A Supreme Court justice's role is to interpret the Constitution and apply its principles to actions by the legislative and executive branches. Even though FDR failed to pack the court during the 1930s, politicization of the selection process became a fact of life. Those liberals that desire an ever more powerful and intrusive federal government must have a compliant Supreme Court to achieve their goals. A liberal Court will allow legislation that would otherwise run afoul of the Constitution's limits on federal power. A liberal Court can also create its own legislation by discovering new 'rights' in the Constitution. As a result, a Supreme Court nominee's politics and personal views are a major concern of liberals and conservatives during the selection and confirmation process.
The media and political elite are hyperventilating over the possibility of one or two vacancies on the Supreme Court within the next year. In the case of the Supreme Court, rather than a simple problem of unlimited terms, the problem is really the lack of planned and routine turnover. The average term of a Supreme Court justice has been, since the year 1800, about 15 years. Individual justice's terms of up to 30 years are common. The problem (for liberals this time) is that these long terms could allow one or two Bush nominees to turn the court towards strict interpretation of the Constitution for many years to come. One can imagine the Bush nominees' confirmation hearings will include their mothers before the Senate Judiciary Committee being questioned about their children's toilet training.
Changes to the terms of Supreme Court justices could solve much of the problem. The Court should be structured like a board of directors with staggered terms. For example, terms could be limited to 15 years with three of the nine justices leaving office every 5 years. The role of Chief Justice would be filled by one of the three most senior justices, thus limiting the Chief Justice to a 5 year term. Confirmation of the three replacement justices prior to the end of each 5 year cycle could be required by law. The Court would then be able to operate at full strength without interruption. Three new justices could be nominated and confirmed as a group, allowing compromise across political lines while keeping the Court focused on reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.
Less hot air from the windbags of the Senate would be an added bonus from this change to Supreme Court terms.
© Curtis Harris
Enough about Bill Clinton, but the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is worth some discussion.
Our Constitution created three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The power of each branch was defined by the functions assigned to it, producing a balance of power in the federal government.
Presidents limited themselves to two terms until Franklin D. Roosevelt held the office from 1933-1945. He died early in his fourth term. FDR should be remembered for three initiatives. First, he led a major expansion of the federal government intended to end the Great Depression. Second, he tried to expand the size of the Supreme Court in order to pack it with judges friendly to his socialist agenda. Third, he violated the Presidential two-term tradition. The appropriate response of the states and the Congress to the possibility of future presidents like FDR was to enact, on February 27th, 1951, the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms.
The 22nd Amendment corrected part of a basic error by America's founders when they wrote the Constitution. They did not limit the terms of federal officials. Presidents, Senators, and Representatives could serve as long as they could win elections. Supreme Court Justices served for life. The Founders, creating the Constitution during the late 1700s, did not expect a problem to develop. To them, public service was a temporary duty that took one away from real life. Also, life expectancy was short. Death was a sufficient limit on political and judicial careers.
Modern America is blessed with much longer life expectancies and cursed with career politicians. The 22nd Amendment fixed the problem in one branch of the federal government. It also created an 'imbalance of power.' Presidential terms are limited. Terms in the Congress and the Supreme Court are not. In past columns, I have argued for term limits on the members of Congress. The key issue is that the Congress will not put limits on itself. Evidently, what is good for Presidents is not good for the Congress. Given the current state of American politics, changes to the lifetime terms of the Supreme Court justices also deserve consideration.
The Supreme Court is designed to keep the other two branches of government within the rules set by our Constitution. A Supreme Court justice's role is to interpret the Constitution and apply its principles to actions by the legislative and executive branches. Even though FDR failed to pack the court during the 1930s, politicization of the selection process became a fact of life. Those liberals that desire an ever more powerful and intrusive federal government must have a compliant Supreme Court to achieve their goals. A liberal Court will allow legislation that would otherwise run afoul of the Constitution's limits on federal power. A liberal Court can also create its own legislation by discovering new 'rights' in the Constitution. As a result, a Supreme Court nominee's politics and personal views are a major concern of liberals and conservatives during the selection and confirmation process.
The media and political elite are hyperventilating over the possibility of one or two vacancies on the Supreme Court within the next year. In the case of the Supreme Court, rather than a simple problem of unlimited terms, the problem is really the lack of planned and routine turnover. The average term of a Supreme Court justice has been, since the year 1800, about 15 years. Individual justice's terms of up to 30 years are common. The problem (for liberals this time) is that these long terms could allow one or two Bush nominees to turn the court towards strict interpretation of the Constitution for many years to come. One can imagine the Bush nominees' confirmation hearings will include their mothers before the Senate Judiciary Committee being questioned about their children's toilet training.
Changes to the terms of Supreme Court justices could solve much of the problem. The Court should be structured like a board of directors with staggered terms. For example, terms could be limited to 15 years with three of the nine justices leaving office every 5 years. The role of Chief Justice would be filled by one of the three most senior justices, thus limiting the Chief Justice to a 5 year term. Confirmation of the three replacement justices prior to the end of each 5 year cycle could be required by law. The Court would then be able to operate at full strength without interruption. Three new justices could be nominated and confirmed as a group, allowing compromise across political lines while keeping the Court focused on reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.
Less hot air from the windbags of the Senate would be an added bonus from this change to Supreme Court terms.
© Curtis Harris
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
