The Nexus

Jolene Xie

For those of you who enjoyed watching President Obama’s inauguration, I hope you savored the moment and stored it amongst your cherished memories. Because it’s entirely possible that we may not bear witness to another new president’s inauguration for a long time.

Earlier this year, New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano introduced a bill that would repeal the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution; the amendment that limits presidents to no more than two terms in office.

If the bill is passed, presidents would no longer be limited to serving two terms, and would essentially be able to run the country as long as they continued to be reelected.

So let’s hear it for the unlimited potential of the U.S. presidency, right?

Not so fast.

What Serrano either fails to realize or is conveniently ignoring is the fact that our nation was formed on the basis that no one person should have unlimited power, regardless of how popular they are. That legacy was passed down from our founding fathers: the transfer of power is essential to a proper republic. They opted for a presidency rather than a monarchy in order to prevent the domination of a single individual.

Allowing an unlimited number of presidential terms would dismantle the system as we know it and create something much closer to that dreaded monarchial rule. Just because the majority agrees with a certain individual doesn’t necessarily justify allowing him to rule indefinitely. The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. If we don’t guarantee the opportunity for a new leader every four to eight years, we jeopardize our government’s ability to let all voices be heard.

One leader with unlimited terms is especially dangerous for a bipartisan nation like the U.S. If one political party were able to keep the same person in power indefinitely, it would threaten the delicate checks and balances that currently exist between Republicans and Democrats.

Under the current system, both parties are encouraged to work together. Presidents know that if they make their decisions too radical, the decisions will likely be reversed when the next president takes office. But with unlimited time as president, the mediating effect of the party system could dissipate.

One party could easily run off with the torch, and the president would have no need to worry about compromising with those who disagree with him, so long as the dissenters are the electoral minority.

Those who champion this bill often argue that many presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, have been critical of the 22nd Amendment. Neither Reagan nor Clinton agreed with having presidential term limits.

There’s just one problem: they were presidents themselves; not exactly the most impartial source.

Of course they supported a repeal of presidential term limits, that repeal would have expanded their own power. Endorsements by so many past presidents make it increasingly obvious that politicians would not hesitate to take advantage of this chance at indefinite political power.

So if you enjoy the occasional inauguration as much as I do, then say no to Jose Serrano and his proposed bill.

Or we’ll be watching a coronation ceremony instead.