‘Worm in the Constitution’

Your editorial (Aug. 1) treats the 22nd Amendment, with its two-term limit for Presidents, as a “Worm in the Constitution.” But it is a worm that has been wriggling, in or out of the Constitution, since George Washington refused a third term.

Some people are claiming that the amendment is “undemocratic,” because it can deny voters the opportunity to reelect someone they support. But politics is hardly “democratic” when voters become heavily dependent on a single individual, or when officials have the advantage of incumbency for a long span of time. Knowing this, the people in most states have long since limited their governors to no more than two consecutive terms. And at the national level, the precedent set by Washington held firm through many presidencies.

Then in 1940, in the midst of great domestic and international crisis, Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for a third term. Inevitably, when he did so, he set a new precedent that undermined the old one. After Roosevelt, the two-term tradition could not longer be sustained by moral force alone. The 22nd Amendment was adopted in order to sustain it by law.

If this country were again in an extreme emergency, and if people were determined to keep a second-term President in office, there could be a resort to extreme measures. There could be a rapid abolition of the 22nd Amendment. Or people could even take advantage of an apparent loophole: that it limits a person’s being “elected” to the presidency, but does not prevent tricky returns to office through the vice presidential back door.

But today, as everyone agrees, we are not in an extreme emergency. Instead, we simply have a President who is extraordinarily popular. And the very fact that many individuals are imagining a third term for Ronald Reagan, in spite of the 22nd Amendment and in the midst of comparative peace and prosperity, suggests that Americans can still be tempted to grow dependent on a personally impressive incumbent. In such a situation, we should be praising the 22nd Amendment, not calling for its repeal.

PARKES RILEY

La Verne