As George W. Bush's leadership flounders a little more than a year after his re-election, we are seeing a return of an old affliction in American politics, "second termitis."

The protracted woes of Richard Nixon's Watergate, Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra affair and Bill Clinton's impeachment were all, in part, manifestations of that malady.

Is there some human failing that affects second-term presidents, like arrogance or sheer fatigue? To some degree, perhaps. But the main problem is not personal but institutional — or rather constitutional, as embodied by the 22nd Amendment limiting presidential tenure.

A second-term president will, in effect, automatically be fired within four years. Inevitably, his influence over Congress weakens. His party leadership frays as presidential hopefuls carve out their own constituencies for the next election. Whether the president is trying to tamp down scandal or to push legislation, he loses his ability to set the agenda.

But whether or not a president has a diminished second term, the amendment barring a third term presents the broader and more serious question of his accountability to the people.

While political commentators analyze every twist in White House politics, while citizens follow dramatic stories of leaks, investigations and indictments, the one person who does not have to care is Bush. In a sense, he has transcended the risks and rewards of American politics. He will not run again for office. The voters will not be able to thank him — or dump him.

And yet accountability to the people is at the heart of a democratic system.

There was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents. That was why Franklin Delano Roosevelt could run again in 1940 and 1944, becoming the only president to serve more than two terms. And that was why, three years later, in 1947, after sporadic public debate, Republicans demanded presidential term limits and changed the Constitution.

With majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans, joined by southern Democrats opposed to the New Deal, were able to push the 22nd Amendment through the House and Senate.

At the time, an amendment limiting presidents to two terms seemed an effective way to invalidate Roosevelt's legacy, to discredit this most progressive of presidents. In the House, one of the few northern Democrats to vote with the majority was freshman representative John F. Kennedy, whose father had fallen out with Roosevelt.

In the spring of 1947, as the historian David Kyvig noted, 18 state legislatures rushed to ratify the amendment, with virtually no public participation in the debate. By 1951, the required three-fourths of the state legislatures had ratified it.

While George Washington limited himself to two terms, it had never been his intention to create a precedent. Washington didn't want to die in office and have the succession appear "monarchical." But his primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquillity of Mount Vernon.

Washington's confidant Alexander Hamilton also had firmly opposed presidential term limits. In Federalist No. 72, Hamilton argued that term limits for the chief executive would diminish inducements to good behavior, discourage presidents from undertaking bold new projects, deny the nation the advantage of his experience and threaten political stability. For his part, Washington added that term limits would exclude from the presidency a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.

Should presidents be denied the opportunity to serve their country and carry through their programs? Should they be allowed to govern without any accountability to voters? Should voters be denied two supreme powers — the right to give popular presidents more terms in office and to repudiate a failed president at the polls? "We ought to take a serious look and see if we haven't interfered with the democratic rights of the people," Ronald Reagan said in 1986.

Some defenders of the 22nd Amendment might argue that an incumbent second-term president would have an even more formidable and undeserved advantage in recognition, experience and the prestige of his office today than in the 1940s.

But the power of incumbency may actually decrease with time. After his landslide victory for a second term in 1936, Roosevelt saw his popular vote drop in 1940 and even more in 1944.

And what about an unfair head start in campaign fund-raising? Presidential incumbents have a significant advantage, but not necessarily an overwhelming one, especially with campaign finance reform.

Since 1956, many bipartisan resolutions to repeal the 22nd Amendment have been submitted to Congress — and gone nowhere. The most recent one to be buried in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee was proposed last February.

Oddly, both the current chairman of that committee, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, and the former chairman, Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, both Republicans, have in the past co-sponsored resolutions to repeal the amendment.

Hasn't the time come for Congress and the voters to revoke an authoritarian, barely considered amendment? Republicans, who revere "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution and who applaud the rise of the conservative movement, should welcome the possibility of a three- or four-term Republican president, thus avoiding "second termitis."

And Democrats, as they contemplate the century that lies ahead, can hope that in another world crisis, this misbegotten amendment will not be there to bar a future Franklin Roosevelt from offering the kind of leadership that he provided in the 1940s.

James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn teach at Williams College and are the authors of "George Washington" and "The Three Roosevelts: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America."