Bill Clinton causes quite a stir with talk of “modifying” 22nd Amendment

Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton sure knows how to get people talking. This time the topic is the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which bars presidents from seeking a third term.

As you may have heard, Clinton was speaking to an audience at the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum in Boston last week when historian Michael Beschloss brought up the topic of the 22nd Amendment. Clinton said he thought it might be time to change, or as he put it, “modify,” the language of the amendment.

“There may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or 50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before,” Clinton said — who coincidentally was 46 upon being elected in 1992. “People would like to bring that man or woman back but they would have no way to do so.”

He added, “I think since people are living much longer…the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime.” Clinton also joked that were it not for the 22nd Amendment, he would have sought a third term. “You’d have had to throw me out,” he said.

Naturally, many journalists and public officials, particularly Clinton’s foes, viewed the statement as the first step towards Clinton’s drive for a third term.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), of all people, indicated that he’s open to ending the two-term maximum, but he wants an outright repeal of the amendment, not a modification.

“If [Clinton] would help me, maybe we could repeal the 22nd Amendment and then he can run again and we can beat him once and for all,” DeLay told reporters yesterday.

Congressional support for a repeal seems limited, to say the least. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would have to approve a constitutional change before it would head to the full Senate. Hatch said yesterday this idea isn’t going anywhere. “Nobody’s going to do that,” he said.

As I noted two months ago, there are two House resolutions that are currently pending that would rescind the 22nd Amendment. One, H.J.Res. 11, is sponsored by Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), while another, H. J. RES. 25, has broader bi-partisan appeal with seven co-sponsors: Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Howard Berman (D-Calif.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), Martin Sabo (D-Minn.), and George Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.).

Even if you think this is a good idea, don’t get too excited. Both of these resolutions are stuck in committee where they will languish permanently. Neither has picked up a single new co-sponsor since being introduced months ago.

Nevertheless, Clinton’s comments have fired some folks up.

As crazy as this sounds — and believe me, this is crazy — some of Clinton’s most enthusiastic supporters have crafted an off-the-wall scheme that they believe could bring Clinton back to his proper place — the White House.

As the current issue of Newsweek reports, “Here’s the farfetched but arguably constitutional scenario: Clinton becomes vice presidential running mate in 2004 for a Democrat who agrees to resign after being sworn in so that Clinton can ascend to the top job. Why would it work? Because the 22nd amendment only bars someone who has been ‘elected’ to serve two terms.”

Crazy, sure, but also legally sound as near as I can tell. The 22nd Amendment says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Backers of this silly scheme believe the key is to get Clinton back to the Oval Office without him being “elected.” This would, oddly enough, get around that pesky law.

Newsweek noted that comedian Al Franken — who has a great new book coming out, by the way — is pushing the idea. “You could get Carrot Top or Strom Thurmond — or me — to run, then they step down,” he said.

A Clinton spokesman rejected the whole idea, but added that Clinton would enjoy seeing “a Franken-Bush debate.” Wouldn’t we all?

Look, I love Bill as much as anyone. If he were on the ballot again, I’d vote for him without hesitation. But there really isn’t any point in wasting too much time on this. We, and by that I mean Democrats, have nine candidates to choose from for next year and one of them is going to take on a popular, well-funded GOP incumbent. Yes, I miss Clinton too, but we’ve got to focus here, people.