there there are also some interesting issues out there and one of them
and and this reappears on the show constantly
and it always surprises me doesn't always surprised action actually I guess
it makes a certain amount a sense that the people would think that way people
call up and they say you know we need term limits re who is bombs are in there
too long and
and and of course that's that was the republican mantra cut going hun
author the third answer for the fourth the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt
Professor Jonathan Xenophon Zimmerman is online with his professor education
history
and the director I've the history a veg occasion Department
at the Steinhardt school of culture education and human development
now at New York University and steinhart STI nhar DT doin' why you dont
EDU is the website and professors Zimmerman welcome to the program
thanks for having me thanks for joining us um
you have Britain apiece basically saying let's go back to the way it was before
I you know by and large the republicans established term limits after the
Roosevelt presidency
the the second a frank the franklin roosevelt presidency a
tell us about well you know I'm
I wanna go back to the founding fathers and son Father's debated this question
quite vehemently and obviously there was strong opinions on both sides but
they decided not to limited constitutional and I think that they
were right
and their major argument was stated removes
well power from the voters
and it also takes away the incentive
they fought for what governor Morrison New York called good behavior
are not why should the president be even accord with the popular will if the
populace is not gonna be folding
thumbs up or thumbs down course at that time
and to those debates there were not well-developed political parties
and you know but I'll get argued now it was lotsa
partisanship provided by Big Mike my point is that
you could argue that right now if President Obama were to suddenly just go
off and some totally weird direction as a lame duck president
that it would cause so much harm to the democratic party that he would be
restrained by that
and now is not something that was anticipated at times constitutional
convention in fact that's actually really interesting point I made I think
that there's something to that but I would also say that
you know the the ER 1 one of the problems with term limits to use Twitter
stratus takes away some restraint on the governing party remember Saturday
to lineup I the president and i think im seen that
in recent months I work with the president
and John Kerry announced iran deal you can expect people like John McCain to
object but
if Obama was in term a minute with Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer be objecting
I don't think is loudly and the reason is that you know key the president would
remain their standard-bearer and in a certain way once his term-limited he is
up to yeah
no i i actually totally agree with their position and I have said
on this program numerous times that I have two problems
term limits one we already have them they're called elections
and to that that
and this probably is it has more to do with congress than with the
with the presidency but I do think that there is some element of the season the
presidency we certainly saw
in the third term a Franklin Roosevelt's presidency and that is that
um there is the AP you know when somebody comes newly into an office
the kinda stumble around for a while and there needs to be a
it you know the the wise elders who have been there and have been around
who can kind of help them and I i guess in the role president there isn't so
much for that but in congress
if you if we were to term-limit congress in this is what we've seen in various
states were
were the house and senator term-limited bat permanent infrastructure that but
the wise elders who show people where the levers of power are
ends up in the lobbyists absolutely you know I mean I think that there's this
very naive idea that if we term limits people that somehow
you know they'll tell they'll be more beholden to the people and less beholden
to lobbyists but I think the state level there some evidence suggesting that is
precisely
handbooks right so a with it when exactly
a forgive my not having look this up in my
little pocket constitution here when exactly did we amend the Constitution
two-term limit the presidency in and what was all I
in 1947 there's a huge Republican majority in Congress voted in favor the
amendment of course to amend the Constitution kinda sad
states that ratify it so was ratified until 1951
novel the entitlements presidency while
while and at that point there was nobody was seriously thought Sherman is going
to be running for a thorough
for terms know but it's interesting that issues the republicans won this and it
really was a Republican maneuver every single Republican member of Congress
voted for the 22nd amendment
up straight party-line severed Anne the Democrats who supported it we're really
democrats said had broken with FDR the New Deal it really was a referendum on
Roosevelt
but what's fascinating is that assumes republicans women summer them started
out at the doubters include you asked white David Eisenhower
hey I I on the verge of being reelected 56 obviously for the last time because
now that the a memory stick and he is term-limited
eisenhower make a statement recorded directly because I just wish
all the term-limit doubters could listen to this he said silent our
United States ought to be able to choose first present anybody a watch for
cordless a number of terms he served
I've got the utmost faith in the long term common sense to the american people
I'm I take the Eisenhower position mean yeah I agree with that
%uh the flip side to that those the burlesque on a situation I mean what do
you do
that you know we arguably no longer have a Constitution larger democratic
republic with a constitutional monarchy
the Supreme Court it through the doctor nagy
married to judicial review marberry versus madison
they have taken onto themselves more power than any other monarchs a European
the queen of england does not have the power to strike down laws
or to establish policy like money is speech in corporations are persons
arm he is it not inconceivable that
that now that money is speech that somebody like
Silvio Berlusconi who owned more than ninety percent of all the median Italy
could ascend to the presidency and then use that that wealth and power to
to become a perpetual president look it's
it's not impossible but I think the answer to hadline see
and creating a new system
I the for the way that we to hold pay for elections
for answers not tire hands behind our back. prima faster
say we can't vote 4x personal can only vote twice
no i i agree with you but but I don't see that them in the Supreme Court I
can't let that happen
absolutely central one for a democracy but I don't think the answer to the
problem of democracy is less democracy
right agree I agree so so
really the the the problem that I identified as money
in politics and that which I'm I'm pointing to the spring court with that
would you agree with that
well just in a way you know and and you know I think they're dead or politics is
broken because the influence a big-money
the term limits is not a reasonable solution to that problem
right I agree I think the this effort to move the Move to Amend on target to
amend the Constitution
to get around the Supreme Court's assertion that you know the money is
protected
by the First Amendment and the corporation to protect both of which it
managed
seems like it at least just a starting point
I'm Park possibly so tied at the end of the day
you know we the people have to give ourselves maximal
decision-making power the way to do that is to allow ourselves to build
anybody that would like gonna okay your plans for Jonathan's am
Zimmerman professor education history and
into director the history education program hang on
this is the Thom Hartmann program at the Steinhardt school of culture education
and human development
new york university thank you professor for being with us thank you was fun