The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The 28th Amendment

No one man, No single individual should be the focus of a change to the constitution - a document for all "the people". Let me be even more specific - It cannot/shoud not be for a future presidency.

In this day and age when images are so vulnerable to manipulation it is dangerous.

In a day and age when governance is second to the pursuit of power, it is dangerous.

In this day and age when a single party apparatus controls all branches of government, it is dangerous.

The constitution is to me thought of in long time periods. To change the constitution for one man, to enable him to run for this center of this power, is like what Mike Ditka did to the New Orlean Saints to draft Ricky Williams.

It is short sighted to AmendForArnold.

Can any one man be worth this risk?

Do we really want to change the constitution because we haven't done it in a while?