AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1971 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, Washington, D.C. Senator BAYH. As we convene the hearing this morning, let me, as chairman, make a rather brief opening remark to put our hearings in proper perspective. Over the years the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments has studied many important aspects of our system of elective government. To give but a few examples, we have studied the problems of succession to the Presidency, considered lowering the voting age in all elections, changing the term of office of Congressmen, and eliminating the outmoded electoral college method of electing our President. The first two studies led to the formulation and passage of the joint resolutions which now are the 25th and 26th amendments to the Constitution. Today the subcommittee is starting another in this continuing series of hearings, this time dealing with the presidential term. The focus will be on Senate Joint Resolution 77-which would limit any future President to a single, 6-year term of office-introduced in the last few Congresses by our esteemed majority leader, Senator Mansfield, on behalf of himself and the distinguished and able Senator from Vermont. Previous efforts to limit the presidential term are, of course, very important to consider. While I have not yet personally decided whether I support this proposed change, I have no doubt that this subject clearly merits a thorough and scholarly investigation. No single person is more important to the successful functioning of our Government and of our Nation than is the President. And it is only restating the obvious to say that the President's powers and capabilities can be (1) greatly altered by the length of the term he serves, and by the number of terms for which he is eligible. Since the time of the first Constitutional Convention, the issue of the proper term of office for the President has long been debated, both in Congress and out. At that first Convention the method of selecting the President and the term of office he should serve were both debated at great length-it finally took more than 60 ballots to come to an agreement. Arguments for change soon were heard, however. Not long after the Constitution was put into effect, the first proposal to change the term from 4 to 6 years was introduced. Since then nearly 160 similar proposals have been offered; most but not all of these proposals coupled the 6-year term with a provision making the President ineligible to succeed himself. Several Presidents have supported such a limitation on their term. For example, in each of his annual messages to Congress, President Andrew Jackson called for limiting the President to a single termbe it 4 or 6 years. President Harrison and Buchanan also called for limiting the President to a single term, as did Presidents Hayes, Cleveland, and Taft. President Lyndon Johnson, in his recently published memoirs, supported the single six year term because "the old belief that a President can carry out the responsibilities of the office and at the same time undergo the rigors of campaigning is, in my opinion, no longer valid." We should not forget that the Confederate States of America limited their President to a single 6-year term. Despite this ongoing debate, it was not until after President Roosevelt was elected to a fourth term that there was real pressure for action. The result, of course, was the 22d amendment, which limited the President to two 4-year terms. It has now been 21 years since the passage of that amendment. We have had the chance to study and reflect on the meaning of the changes that have been made. But even though five different Presidents have been in office while this amendment was effective, there has been almost no thoughtful study of the effects which a limitation on the President's term or a limitation on his reeligibility has on his ability to govern effectively. I feel that it is high time for us to study this matter seriously-not for any political ends but in order to determine what combination of term length and eligibility for reelection will bring to this country a President who is at one and the same time responsive to the feelings of all Americans without finding it necessary to bend and change to satisfy the short term interests of powerful or electorally significant groups at the expense of the Nation's future interest. In regard to the single term limit, it is clear that there is a lot to be said for freeing the President from the pressures stemming from the demands of re-election campaigns by limiting him to a single term. The most basic arguments can be called the statesmanship argument. As Senator Aiken put it so eloquently on the floor early this spring: This amendment would allow a President to devote himself entirely to the problems of the Nation and would free him from the millstone of partisan politics. A single term would allow a President to wear at all times his "presidential hat" and forget for a while that he also owns a "politicians hat." Senator Aiken contends that it is an indisputable fact that no President can give his best to the Nation or maintain our prestige in the world as long as he is constantly being fired on by those whose principal purpose is to keep him from being reelected. Several scholars have pointed out to me that in their view, our Presidents too feel that they have to act like politicians seeking immediate reelection, when they should instead be acting like statemen, expounding our national interest to the world, without regard to the consequences a necessary course of action might have on the next election. The President often is faced with incredibly difficult decisions. I feel that we ought to do all that we can in this time of increasingly complex international relations to so structure the term of office that every President will be encouraged to make such judgments on the basis of what is best for his country. It makes sense to minimize the importance of the President's own personal political interest. The second basic argument for a single term limitation stems from the demands of a reelection campaign. Specifically, beginning with the end of his second year in office a President is said to spend an increasing amount of his time on the mechanics and strategy of gaining reelection. We cannot afford to have our Chief Executive spending so much of his and the country's-time on purely partisan matters. In addition, Congress and the public often view anything the President does in the second half of his term as suspiciously partisan and not really worthy of respect. As a result, important programs are dismissed as political ploys. If the President were barred from succeeding himself, people would be more likely to realize that he was not just acting for partisan reasons and treat his proposals accordingly. A single term is not without its drawbacks, however. Making a President ineligible for reelection could be said to remove from the political equation one of our basic sources of democratic accountability-the desire of each elected official to be so responsive as to be able to win reelection. Another objection is that President would be a "lame duck" from the outset of his term and thus unable to exercise all the powers which past Presidents have had at their command. Clearly we must give this issue closer study, but I am by no means convinced that a President who was barred from serving a second term by the Constitution-and not by his own unpopularity-would be a lame duck. He would have all the powers of the President while in office, even would be likely to be a powerful influence on the course of later events as an ex-President, and as a leader of his party. General Eisenhower was the only President to serve such a "lame duck” term; I have seen no evidence that his capabilities and powers were diminished noticeably at the outset of the second term. Another charge does trouble me somewhat. Several political theorists have pointed out that in times of great crisis, such as the period following a nuclear disaster, the people should be free to reelect the same President once again. A constitutional mandate totally forbidding reeligibility might well hamstring our country in a time of great division, forcing the voters to choose between two complete unknowns when they might well be better off by choosing a man of proven ability. I hope these hearings will be the starting point of a detailed study of all these problems. We just do not know enough about them now, in my view, to make a careful judgment. Obviously, it is by no means necessary to tie together the ban on reeligibility and the 6-year term, but the two seem to complement each other nicely. At the same time as we are precluding a second term it might well be wise to extend the length of the basic term to give the President enough time to learn the job, choose an effective staff, propose legislation, prod the Congress into passing it, and actually help in its implementation by the relevant Government agencies. There seems to be a popular consensus that 4 years is really not enough time to do all this. Therefore the 6-year term has been suggested. I do hope that our witnesses will address themselves to the following questions: It is sometimes said that one of the main reasons that the 4-year term seems too short is that the second half of most terms are taken up by reelection efforts. If we eliminate the possibility of reelection, might this give a President enough extra time to accomplish any or most of his programs within 4 years? Would 2 extra years make any real difference? Those who oppose lengthening the term again speak of the problem of accountability. We are used to accepting whoever wins the election for 4 years. Will we be equally happy to accept a President who barely squeaked by in the election for a full 6 years? I realize, of course, that every Member of this body is elected to a 6-year term. But there is only one President for the whole country and there are two Senators from each State. And each State's two Senators are not picked in the same election. Would a President elected only every 6 years be sufficiently responsive to shifting tides of public will? In conclusion, I am grateful to Senators Mansfield and Aiken for raising this issue. These hearings will concern the rights of every citizen of this country. The outcome could have an important effect on the ability of our Government to respond to modern demands and needs. I hope that these hearings will provide a spirited debate both in Washington and in the States. (S.J. Res. 77 and background material on the proposal prepared by the Library of Congress follow:) [S.J. Res. 77, 92d Cong., first sess.] JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the term of office of President and Vice President of the United States Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: “ARTICLE "SECTION 1. The term of office of the President and the Vice President of the United States shall be six years. No person shall be eligible for election for more than one term as President or Vice President. A person who has been elected as Vice President for any term shall be eligible for election as President for a later term. A person who has been elected as Vice President for any term, and who during that term has succeeded to the office of President, shall be eligible for election as President for a later term. |