Friday, March 19, 2010
Amendments II and XXII
(fm the BC thread "Unilateralism")
(who has reasonable caveats regarding Constitutional changes)
The two term limit seems the worst of both worlds. One term is spent running for reelection and one is as a lame duck. The four year period seems arbitrary and to cramped to get a program enacted and evaluated. It permits grand ideas to be proposed with the responsibility for results that can be judged to be kicked down the road. The whipsaw effect keeps all branches unstable and helps turn politics into a game for the obsessive, as opposed to a responsibility for adults. Either repealing the limit or going to a single term of 6 or 7 years may be better.
Despite all the bluster of the media over the 2nd Amendment, and the willingness of the Left to now Rahm through anything without using due process, I doubt that any Constitutional change on that issue would get through the states until after a series of other disasters have already struck us. The pending immigration amnesty is one such disaster. That does not mean that I deny that it is on their agenda but rather that it is probably a strategic goal more than a tactical maneuver.
No constitutional changes should be adopted unless they have first been "fully debated and thoroughly chewed upon." Your concerns are valid. That is why I am skeptical of the enthusiasm I occasionally see for a new Constitutional Convention. I could easily see a convention being hijacked the same way that David Axelrod managed to pack the Iowa and Texas caucuses to get Obama nominated.