One could not start this debate at a better place than the twenty second Amendment of the Constitution Of the United States:
-----
Amendment XXII:
-----
“Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.”
(NB: Not to be applied retroactively)
-----
Just months into his fourth term, Franklyn Delano Roosevelt died and, with him, the idea of unlimited terms for presidents. An amendment, promoted heavily by the Republican Party, and by others nervous at the idea of a permanent presidency; a King, immortal in office, and not subject to accountability in the most powerful office in the land. The Twenty Second Amendment was passed in 1947. It was ratified by the states four years later. The amendment limits a president to two four-year terms.
-----
The Bylaws of UCO reflects this concern as regards the Office of President and of course for The Vice Presidents.
Bob Marshall raises the question;
Why not Term Limits for all of our elected officials, and this begs the question, why was this not done at the National levels of our Government as regards the House of Representatives and the Senate.
-----
The following may prove instructive:
-----
“ the Supreme Court has ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, Nos. 93-1456 and 93-1428, that congressional term limits (as passed by individual states) is unconstitutional,
-----
it appears James Madison, father of our Constitution, was right. In his Federalist Paper No. 53, written over 200 years ago, he explained why the Constitutional Convention of 1787 rejected term limits. He stated:
-----
"a few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them."
I suggest that one might replace the phrase; “members of Congress” with “members of The Executive Board” and thus make this highly applicable to our situation here in CV. We should rigorously avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
This immediately gives rise to the issue of culling out the “deadwood” on the EB; this matter should be the province of the Nominating Committee; which must be transformed from a political rubber stamp into a true deliberative independent body charged with finding and developing real talent as demonstrated by deeds and good ideas at the Association level.
The EB should be a body of wise and deliberative agents of the people, with solid knowledge of the law and of the panoply of issues critical to CV operations; this sort of knowledge comes with years of experience and should not be shortcut by arbitrary Term Limits.
In the same vein, I would not make this Amendment retroactive and I would eliminate the Proviso in The UCO Bylaws which allows the President of UCO to “pack the EB” with up to eight appointed “Political Hacks”
Dave Israel
