iion/Tuesday, Augusts, 1986
Right choice, but
the wrong reasons
The message behind the 22nd Amendment is that if the
public elects the same president more than twice, they are inca
pable of selecting the best candidate. The amendment insults
the integrity of American voters and should be repealed.
The founding fathers considered a limited-tenure presi
dency and decided not to tie the hands of future generations.
Even staunch two-term proponents such as Thomas Jefferson
realized that situations may occur when a longer stay in office is
necessary.
Ironically, the driving force behind the amendment’s ratifi
cation was Republicans who were upset with Franklin D. Roose
velt’s four-term presidency. Now the Republicans want the
amendment repealed to allow Ronald Reagan another term. In
both cases, the Republicans’ actions are misguided.
The ringleaders of the third-term movement claim that
since many consider Reagan one of the greatest presidents, the
voters deserve another chance at electing him. But FDR also was
considered by many to be one of our greatest leaders.
Reagan previously supported the 22nd Amendment, going
so far as to try to adopt a similar policy for California governors
when he held that office. But as time runs out, he has shown
support for amendment opponents, whose primary objection is
that the measure creates a lame-duck president. Reagan, how
ever, claims his motives aren’t selfish: “. . .any president who will
try to get the Constitution changed should not be doing it for
himself— he should be doing it for those who will follow him.”
It’s good the president feels that way because despite the Re
publican hoopla, a repeal would have no effect on the Reagan
presidency. First, two-thirds of the House and Senate must ap
prove the measure, then three-fourths of the state legislatures.
When the 22nd Amendment was implemented, it took four
vears from the time of congressional approval to state ratifica-
tion.
But a third Reagan term should not be the criterion for rati-
1 g ; le Constitution change. No limitation on presidential ten
ure should be instigated with a specific president in mind. To do
so would be to repeat the mistake of the 80th Congress Republi
cans who mistrusted voters because they kept electing FDR.
If voters can make intelligent decisions twice, why not three
times? We need to repeal the 22nd Amendment, not to keep
Ronald Reagan in office, but to restore A^merican voters’ ability
to govern themselves effectively
The Battalion Editorial Board
$
Reagan steering for
Gorbachev summit
President Rea
gan sa\ his letter Borry
to Soviet leader Schweid
Mikhail G o r b a - d P News A nn lysis
chev “underlines ■bmmbmmmmhhmhm
i.'y det nation to keep the inomen-
urn going.”
The president meant the drive on
both sides to make sure Gorbachev
comes here to see Reagan by year’s end
for their second summit meeting.
Af ter months of delay, the chances of
fulfilling the commitment the two lead
ers made last November in their Geneva
fireside chat suddenly are high.
But die energetic procedural activity,
ich ■ up o a visit here in September
by Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard She-
vardnndze, does not guarantee results.
Vnd in the euphoria of finally getting
pi cpar; a ions on track, intractable prob-
uis m, - te. porarily overlooked.
‘ Mai Wars. ’ for instance. The war in
\. stan. And human rights.
Ml a certain agenda items. And all
i xt i ernely difficult and possibly un-
sj -le.
li\ one thing to have a summit meet-
but quite another to reach under-
;ngs that reduce tensions and pro-
•Muce concrete results. In fact, curbstone
- . ;uc.s have suggested through the years
■; .S.-Soviet summitry that it may be
. se to raise expectations and not de-
live. than to bat e no summit at all.
Reagan has indirectly touched on the
f ' * obstac le to a productive outcome by
calling the U.S. space-based defense
program a “pillar” of the American ef-
h rt to red’ . e nuclear weapons.
In ! . he president wants Gorba
chev n th k defense, too. The idea is
that the two superpowers would work
together to reverse a generation of arms
control strategy and shield ihe United
States and the Soviet Union from missile
The problem is Gorbachev has de
nounced Star Wars, formally known as
the Strategic Defense Initiative, as a
dangerous potential extension of the
arms race. He not only would have to do
an about-face, but find ways to squeeze
out of the hard-pressed Soviet economy
the vast resources required to develop a
modern missile def ense. The rubles just
might not be there.
And yet, the Soviet leader already has
given in a little bit to Reagan by ac
knowledging it’s really impossible to
stop American research. The question
now is whether he can be persuaded to
give a lot more ground and accept U.S.
testing of futuristic technology in space.
If he refuses to yield, it is hard to see
flow a summit can produce meaningful
progress toward curbing the nuclear
arms race.
Similarly, Gorbachev’s announce
ment that he would withdraw six regi
ments from Afghanistan is a far cry
from the complete pullout of the Red
Army that Reagan would like to nego
tiate at the summit.
The Soviet leader has offered a con
cession, about proportional to his ac
quiescence to U.S. Star Wars research,
but not the capitulation sought by the
Reagan administration.
The third big obstacle to a successful
summit is human rights. Reagan hopes
to improve the lot of Soviet Jews and
other minorities, while Gorbachev takes
a traditional Russian stance against
Western intrusion.
Despite Gorbachev’s position, how
ever, this and previous U.S. administra
tions have been able to secure the re
lease of some prominent dissidents,
reunite some divided families and con
centrate international attention on the
Soviet situation.
Barry Schweid covers diplomacy and
national security for The Associated
Press.
WOO T>OM'T- UNDERSTAND'•'-o' A/<560 ~rWAT sh R l e
t+se've c f o"P a mesibENT toE t-tK£ ✓ TS £
to ftepSAL the JgT* AnemumrS yfM
i — —■— ^l
Bg ’
HRobe
Opponents attempting to kill
SDI by extending ABM treaty
Professor Rob
ert J astro w, the re
nowned astrophy
sicist who teaches
at Dartmouth but
lectures to a uni
versal audience in
his enthusiasm for
the possibilities of
a strategic defense
system, writes now
(in National Re
view) that the op
ponents of President Reagan’s space
shield are adopting tatics designed to
kill the program without appearing to
do so. Their principal weapon is to
stress the years and years that lie ahead
of us before deployment is even thinka
ble. If we announced a program to land
a man on Mars by the year 2012, the tac
tical appeal of husbandry can be
pleaded to postpone that to the year
2015 without greatly upsetting anybody.
It is a version of this kind of thing
that is going on, and Jastrow perceives
the extraordinary subtlety of it.
Consider that basic question of the
ABM treaty. As previously discussed in
this space, there are two understandings
of its bearing on our Star Wars research.
The so-called resticitve version (adopted
by the United States, notwithstanding a
ruling by the legal counsel of the State
Department that the permissive version
is the correct legal reading of the trea
ty’s provisions) prohibits certain kinds
of testing, and, of course, deployment.
Well then, crafty opponents of SDI
look up at you with wide-eyed inno
cence, since deployment of the system is
at least five years away — more probably
15 years away — and since testing at the
critical phase is years away, why not just
go ahead and reaffirm the ABM treaty
for another five years? That way we
make some points with the Soviet Union
and with world opinion, and delay our
program not at all.
“A five-year extension of the ABM
treaty,” writes Professor Jastrow,
William F.
Buckle^uJr
“would stop SDI cold. In 1992, the SDI
team still would be several years away
from the results needed to make a deci
sion on deployment. Add five to 10
years to that — for the time needed to
build and deploy — and we are well into
the next century. Congressmen call
that: ‘Research forever and deploy nev
er.’”
Jastrow adds a widely neglected
point. It is that regulations of the De
partment of Defense “forbid initiating a
program which, when brought to frui
tion, would violate an arms-Control
treaty. A five-year extension would
mean not only that we could not deploy
for five years but that we couldn’t get
any closer to deployment for five years.”
Presumably, the regulations of our
own Department of Defense could be al
tered by executive flat, but one can hear
the hue and cry that would bring on.
The utterly bewildering failure of the
Reagan administration to sweep that
preposterous cobweb (the ABM treaty)
out of the way hinders us at every turn.
It encourages a heavy fog that obscures
the penetration of our objective, which
is to make free people secure. Consider
the matter of SDI’s budget. The admin
istration asked for $4.8 billion, the con
gressional committees came up with
$3.4 billion and $3.6 billion. So what
does it matter if we slow down a little bit,
given that we’re talking about some
thing was off there in the late ’90s?
The Department of Defense had
scheduled for the near future the test of
an airplane called the AOA. Think of it
as a super-complicated AWAC. Its mis
sion? To detect an enemy warhead, cal
culate its trajectory and send that infor
mation to our land-based smart bullet.
“It fires a beam of fast-moving atomic
particles at the oncoming warhead,
scrammbling its electronics so that the
nuclear weapon inside cannot explode.
Progress is so rapid that the SDI team
plans an in-space test of a neutral-parti
cle beam in 1990.”
Now, the AOA would be the heart of
the European defense system, designed
as it is to intercept Soviet tactical ml
siles. European technology is not up!
launching an AOA. Either we doitc'l
does not get done. “Putting a ceiling
$3.4 (billion) to $3.6 billion on the kill
7 r I tm-n
budget i' .i wa\ of seeming to\otc| j ()n(1
ihe pi * > g 1.1111 while .K 11 i.i II \ killing it. n . n j
They talk <>t ihe need to curl) >))r: com
ing, to cut defense 50 cents, nonkl
fense 50 cents in pursuit of lower buj
get deficits. But defense, which used ||l u
eat up 50 pel (< nt < )l l lie budget
the 1950s and 1960s, now takes up.
pen cut 111 plain d< •ll.m u c . nut i "™
counting for inflation), defense spend
ing has risen 425 percent in the last'd
years; non-defense spending, l,473[)t! ^
cent. No, it isn’t fear of a inisspentd#
lar. It is that asphyxiating fear of a tett
nological breakthrough thatwoull j
concentrate the human brain onhont
frustrate nuclear destruction. Strange
and increasingly strange that Reap
should be so acquiescent in these® (
neuvers.
Copyright 1986, Universal Press Syndicate
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Sduthwesl Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Michelle Powe, Editor
Kay Mallett, Managing Editor
Loren Steffy, Opinion /’age Editor
Scott Sutherland, City Editor
Ken Sury, Sports Editor
Editorial Policy
I he Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting nwip
per operated as a comninnily set vice to Texas A&Mlid
Bryan -College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion arc those of fa
Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessarily rep 1
resent the opinions of Texas AJiM administrators, farm
or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also sel ves as a laboratory newspaper^
students in reporting, editing and photography clsiixi
within the Department of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Tuesday through Frith)
during the Texas A KM summer semester, except for holi
day and examination periods. Mail subscriptions art
$16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and S35pft
full year. Advertising rates furnished on request.
Our address: I he Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald
Building, I exas A&M I 'niversitv, College Station, W
77615.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77841
POS TMAS TER: Send address changes to The Batt^
ion. 216 Reed McDonald. Texas A&M University,Colley
Station TX 77843.