CDZ Time for One-Term Presidents?

[jwoodie]

Let's face it: The second term for most Presidents is generally a lackluster attempt to burnish their legacies with meaningless (or worse) posturing. If a President's major goals can't be achieved in four years, they probably won't be. Why not turn over the reins of government to somebody else who wants something new to accomplish? (James Polk was a model President in this regard.)

The two front runners in this year's election are both in their late sixties. I would like to see both of them select VP running mates who could take over four years hence without facing a steep learning curve. Is this possible? The Constitution originally awarded the Vice Presidency to the candidate with the second most electoral votes. Maybe our political parties should do the same thing with respect to delegate votes.

What say you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would prefer the six year single term amendment for a president and vice-president.

 

[320 Years of History]

The founders didn't originally define there be a limited quantity of terms for the President. I think we should return to that. If one is disinclined to run as were Jefferson and Washington, fine. If one is indifferent about holding the office, but willing if their party/nation calls them to and re-elects them to do, fine. Forcing a President into "lame duck" status is, IMO, absurd and as ill advised as was prohibition. Two "dumbass" amendments to the U.S. Constitution ratified in succession. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[konradv]

The founders didn't originally define there be a limited quantity of terms for the President. I think we should return to that. If one is disinclined to run as were Jefferson and Washington, fine. If one is indifferent about holding the office, but willing if their party/nation calls them to and re-elects them to do, fine. Forcing a President into "lame duck" status is, IMO, absurd and as ill advised as was prohibition. Two "dumbass" amendments to the U.S. Constitution ratified in succession.

I agree that telling people for whom they're allowed to vote is stupid, but in defense of accuracy the two amendments were the 18th & 22nd, ratified almost 30 years apart.

 

[konradv]

I would prefer the six year single term amendment for a president and vice-president.

I agree that's better than a single 4-year term, but repealing the 22nd would also solve the lame-duck second term problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would prefer the six year single term amendment for a president and vice-president.

I agree that's better than a single 4-year term, but repealing the 22nd would also solve the lame-duck second term problem.

If that have never been ratified, Bill Clinton would be running for his 7th straight term in office. I don't want that.

 

[konradv]

I would prefer the six year single term amendment for a president and vice-president.

I agree that's better than a single 4-year term, but repealing the 22nd would also solve the lame-duck second term problem.

If that have never been ratified, Bill Clinton would be running for his 7th straight term in office. I don't want that.

If that's what the people want, that's what they should get. As long as the loser steps down when the run is over, I don't see a problem. That wouldn't happen as long as we have an apolitical military and there's no one to back up a recalcitrant loser.

 

[320 Years of History]

The founders didn't originally define there be a limited quantity of terms for the President. I think we should return to that. If one is disinclined to run as were Jefferson and Washington, fine. If one is indifferent about holding the office, but willing if their party/nation calls them to and re-elects them to do, fine. Forcing a President into "lame duck" status is, IMO, absurd and as ill advised as was prohibition. Two "dumbass" amendments to the U.S. Constitution ratified in succession.

I agree that telling people for whom they're allowed to vote is stupid, but in defense of accuracy the two amendments were the 18th & 22nd, ratified almost 30 years apart.

My mistake. TY. One dumbass amendment, followed by one that shouldn't have been necessary, followed by one that should have existed from the start, followed by the repeal of another dumbass amendment, and then another dumbass amendment following on the heels of another one that shouldn't have been needed to begin with. And yet, we can't get one that needs to actually be made due to a legitimate failure to foresee the evolution of the nation. Clearly a longer span of lunacy that I'd originally recognized. LOL

 

[baileyn45]

Let's face it: The second term for most Presidents is generally a lackluster attempt to burnish their legacies with meaningless (or worse) posturing. If a President's major goals can't be achieved in four years, they probably won't be. Why not turn over the reins of government to somebody else who wants something new to accomplish? (James Polk was a model President in this regard.)

The two front runners in this year's election are both in their late sixties. I would like to see both of them select VP running mates who could take over four years hence without facing a steep learning curve. Is this possible? The Constitution originally awarded the Vice Presidency to the candidate with the second most electoral votes. Maybe our political parties should do the same thing with respect to delegate votes.

What say you?

I have to admit that when I read the title I had a knee jerk reaction of no. However you make a good point about second terms. I would still lean towards no as I fear starting to mess with the system may open it up to other changes that may be damaging. Not exactly a logical fear but...

 

[320 Years of History]

Let's face it: The second term for most Presidents is generally a lackluster attempt to burnish their legacies with meaningless (or worse) posturing. If a President's major goals can't be achieved in four years, they probably won't be. Why not turn over the reins of government to somebody else who wants something new to accomplish? (James Polk was a model President in this regard.)

The two front runners in this year's election are both in their late sixties. I would like to see both of them select VP running mates who could take over four years hence without facing a steep learning curve. Is this possible? The Constitution originally awarded the Vice Presidency to the candidate with the second most electoral votes. Maybe our political parties should do the same thing with respect to delegate votes.

What say you?

I have to admit that when I read the title I had a knee jerk reaction of no. However you make a good point about second terms. I would still lean towards no as I fear starting to mess with the system may open it up to other changes that may be damaging. Not exactly a logical fear but...

Really?

• What element of the idea of a one term presidency strikes you as a good idea?
• What makes you think that being limited to one term would do much other than make every President's "sole term" anything other than a "lame duck" term halfway through it?
• What makes you think that one term would not dramatically shift enough power away from the executive branch such that the balance of power just plain ol' isn't balanced at all?

In my mind, for the idea of a one term presidency to have any merit at all, it'd need to be accompanied by revisions to our system so that we are more parliamentary in the sense that the incoming executive necessarily has a Congressional majority as well. Were that not so, there'd be little point of having a President; we may as well install a figure head and let them stay in place until they die.

Limiting the President's terms to two already screwed the balance of power enough, too much if you ask me. The potential indefinite re-election of a President is the counter to the Congress having the same potentiality. There's a reason why Congresspersons have two year terms, Presidents/VPs four, and Senators six. It allows for a government that at once can reflect the hotheadedness of periodic fancy in the House, and have ever increasing elements of stability and long term vision in the "upper chamber." The "infinitely renewable" four year term of the President stood between the two as again, a balance for both.

 

[jwoodie]

If the Founders envisioned a lifetime President, they would have provided for it. George Washington's single greatest achievement was opposing such a position and voluntarily stepping down after his second term. This was accepted by the entire country as unwritten gospel until Franklin Roosevelt* seized upon WW2 as an excuse to violate this principle in 1940. He then compounded this breach by concealing his declining health from the public while running for a fourth term in 1944, thus unilaterally appointing his own successor (VP Harry Truman).

Given unlimited terms of office, a President could potentially use his appointment powers to create a defacto one-party state. That is why the Constitution had to be amended to two terms.

*FDR refused to even discuss the free-falling economy with his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) before his inauguration in March 1933, some four months after his election. As a result, the Constitution was amended to move up the inauguration date to January.

The Constitution and the Inauguration of the President

 

[Syriusly]

Let's face it: The second term for most Presidents is generally a lackluster attempt to burnish their legacies with meaningless (or worse) posturing. If a President's major goals can't be achieved in four years, they probably won't be. Why not turn over the reins of government to somebody else who wants something new to accomplish? (James Polk was a model President in this regard.)

The two front runners in this year's election are both in their late sixties. I would like to see both of them select VP running mates who could take over four years hence without facing a steep learning curve. Is this possible? The Constitution originally awarded the Vice Presidency to the candidate with the second most electoral votes. Maybe our political parties should do the same thing with respect to delegate votes.

What say you?

If we had only one term President's- then every President would be a lame duck President.

 

[oldsoul]

I gotta agree with the two term limit in place now. It seems the best answer to all the positions/issues raised so far. If someone can come up with a better solution, I am all ears.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some corrections are necessary.

One, a single term leaves the President with full power to xxxx with his opponents, no holds barred.

Two, Herbert Hoover wanted to tie FDR down to policies before he left office, and FDR told his staff, "That xxxxxx xxxxxxx lost, so he won't xxxxxxx tell me anything, do you xxxxxxxx hear me? Elections have xxxxxxx consequences." ( I toned it down for you all.)

 

[320 Years of History]

Some corrections are necessary.

One, a single term leaves the President with full power to xxxx with his opponents, no holds barred.

Two, Herbert Hoover wanted to tie FDR down to policies before he left office, and FDR told his staff, "That xxxxxx xxxxxxx lost, so he won't xxxxxxx tell me anything, do you xxxxxxxx hear me? Elections have xxxxxxx consequences." ( I toned it down for you all.)

LOL Next time you "tone it down," do you think you could do so using polite, standard English so we could know what the heck you have to say?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some corrections are necessary.

One, a single term leaves the President with full power to xxxx with his opponents, no holds barred.

Two, Herbert Hoover wanted to tie FDR down to policies before he left office, and FDR told his staff, "That xxxxxx xxxxxxx lost, so he won't xxxxxxx tell me anything, do you xxxxxxxx hear me? Elections have xxxxxxx consequences." ( I toned it down for you all.)

LOL Next time you "tone it down," do you think you could do so using polite, standard English so we could know what the heck you have to say?

You know what FDR said and why he did it.

HH was trying to tie FDR to HH's policies, and FDR said XXXX that XXXXXXX XXXXXX.

 

[320 Years of History]

If the Founders envisioned a lifetime President, they would have provided for it. George Washington's single greatest achievement was opposing such a position and voluntarily stepping down after his second term. This was accepted by the entire country as unwritten gospel until Franklin Roosevelt* seized upon WW2 as an excuse to violate this principle in 1940. He then compounded this breach by concealing his declining health from the public while running for a fourth term in 1944, thus unilaterally appointing his own successor (VP Harry Truman).

Given unlimited terms of office, a President could potentially use his appointment powers to create a defacto one-party state. That is why the Constitution had to be amended to two terms.

*FDR refused to even discuss the free-falling economy with his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) before his inauguration in March 1933, some four months after his election. As a result, the Constitution was amended to move up the inauguration date to January.

The Constitution and the Inauguration of the President

Do you have the first idea why Washington didn't pursue a third term? The man stated quite clearly in his 1796 farewell address that his reason for not pursuing a third term was his age. That notwithstanding, the founding fathers didn't even consider holding political office as a career; they saw it as something one did out of duty and, for lack of better terms, largesse or noblesse oblige.

It's certainly true that they understood that political office should "rotate" among citizens, and voting makes that not only possible but likely, particularly for the office of the President. That's in part precisely why we vote for our executive leaders rather than their ascending to power by hereditary right. If the majority of the electorate wants a given individual to remain as President, why shouldn't s/he do so if s/he too is willing? The idea of limiting the quantity of terms for a President effectively says, "to hell with what the majority of the nation wants and would vote for; you gotta go." That seems directly in opposition to the principles we were founded upon.

 

[jwoodie]

Some corrections are necessary.

One, a single term leaves the President with full power to xxxx with his opponents, no holds barred.

Two, Herbert Hoover wanted to tie FDR down to policies before he left office, and FDR told his staff, "That xxxxxx xxxxxxx lost, so he won't xxxxxxx tell me anything, do you xxxxxxxx hear me? Elections have xxxxxxx consequences." ( I toned it down for you all.)

LOL Next time you "tone it down," do you think you could do so using polite, standard English so we could know what the heck you have to say?

You know what FDR said and why he did it.

HH was trying to tie FDR to HH's policies, and FDR said XXXX that XXXXXXX XXXXXX.

Cite?

XXXXXXXXX = BBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSSS

 

[baileyn45]

Let's face it: The second term for most Presidents is generally a lackluster attempt to burnish their legacies with meaningless (or worse) posturing. If a President's major goals can't be achieved in four years, they probably won't be. Why not turn over the reins of government to somebody else who wants something new to accomplish? (James Polk was a model President in this regard.)

The two front runners in this year's election are both in their late sixties. I would like to see both of them select VP running mates who could take over four years hence without facing a steep learning curve. Is this possible? The Constitution originally awarded the Vice Presidency to the candidate with the second most electoral votes. Maybe our political parties should do the same thing with respect to delegate votes.

What say you?

I have to admit that when I read the title I had a knee jerk reaction of no. However you make a good point about second terms. I would still lean towards no as I fear starting to mess with the system may open it up to other changes that may be damaging. Not exactly a logical fear but...

Really?

• What element of the idea of a one term presidency strikes you as a good idea?
• What makes you think that being limited to one term would do much other than make every President's "sole term" anything other than a "lame duck" term halfway through it?
• What makes you think that one term would not dramatically shift enough power away from the executive branch such that the balance of power just plain ol' isn't balanced at all?

In my mind, for the idea of a one term presidency to have any merit at all, it'd need to be accompanied by revisions to our system so that we are more parliamentary in the sense that the incoming executive necessarily has a Congressional majority as well. Were that not so, there'd be little point of having a President; we may as well install a figure head and let them stay in place until they die.

Limiting the President's terms to two already screwed the balance of power enough, too much if you ask me. The potential indefinite re-election of a President is the counter to the Congress having the same potentiality. There's a reason why Congresspersons have two year terms, Presidents/VPs four, and Senators six. It allows for a government that at once can reflect the hotheadedness of periodic fancy in the House, and have ever increasing elements of stability and long term vision in the "upper chamber." The "infinitely renewable" four year term of the President stood between the two as again, a balance for both.

Good points as well, as I said I would leave it as is.

 

[baileyn45]

If the Founders envisioned a lifetime President, they would have provided for it. George Washington's single greatest achievement was opposing such a position and voluntarily stepping down after his second term. This was accepted by the entire country as unwritten gospel until Franklin Roosevelt* seized upon WW2 as an excuse to violate this principle in 1940. He then compounded this breach by concealing his declining health from the public while running for a fourth term in 1944, thus unilaterally appointing his own successor (VP Harry Truman).

Given unlimited terms of office, a President could potentially use his appointment powers to create a defacto one-party state. That is why the Constitution had to be amended to two terms.

*FDR refused to even discuss the free-falling economy with his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) before his inauguration in March 1933, some four months after his election. As a result, the Constitution was amended to move up the inauguration date to January.

The Constitution and the Inauguration of the President

I agree. Washington stepping down is the least celebrated action by a president ever. It's mind boggling as to how different our history would be had he not.