I get your rule and why you did this, but really, shouldn’t Kennedy be President during this time frame? Alternatively, you could always assume that it’s Garner who was assasinated in Dallas.
I think it’s a really bad idea. Stability is not the cardinal virtue of democracy (if you want stability, have a dictatorship or an absolute monarchy). More important is the regular submission of public officials to the electorate. The current four-year term, with one chance for reelection, ideally means that no President remains so long in office that he or she may, through inertia or malice, do lasting harm to the country. A quarter-century is just too damned long for a President to serve.
Little Nemo, that’s an interesting extrapolation of who would’ve served, had the OP’s proposed change been adopted, but the Speaker of the House and the President pro tem of the Senate have been ahead of the Secretary of State and other Cabinet members since the time of the Civil War, or even before (come to think of it, the President pro tem of the Senate was ahead of the Speaker until the 1947 change to the law, wasn’t he?)
Zakalwe: Oddly enough, JFK called the by-then-ancient Garner to wish him a happy birthday shortly before his trip to Dallas in 1963.
All three of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Vice Presidents lived surprisingly long lives. John Nance Garner died in 1967 just two weeks before his 100th birthday. Henry Wallace died at 77 in 1965. And Harry Truman died at 86 in 1972.
Can’t believe I overlooked this, and I just don’t want the misunderstanding to get into the debate here.
Impeachment doesn’t remove anyone from office. It’s an indictment – the reason to have a trial.
The trial phase is conducted by the Senate, and requires a 2/3 majority to remove the official (President, judge or whatever) from office.
Considering how rare it is to get 2/3 of the U.S. Senate to agree on anything important, I don’t consider impeachment to be a practical balance to a 25-year presidential term.
He’s used to it.
Maybe it would make more sense to have a parliamentary system. The president/PM would then serve indefinitely, until thrown out by his/her party losing control of Congress/Parliament.
You appear to be saying that anybody over the age of 60 is probably senile or infirm?
Seventy-five is “positively ancient” now? You people are so ageist.
Anyway, I think there’s something to be said for having a longer minimum term of office than four years. Such is the lag in the effect of economic policy on actual economic behaviour that I think it’s unfair on a government to judge them after only four years. Give them at least seven years, I would say. Less than that and they’re liable to go for superficial quick fixes, with an eye always on the next election.
Well, I think AskNott meant something more like that many (most?) people over the age of 60 are probably too fragile to carry out the duties of the president for very long. As I recall from History, Reagan turned 70 in office, but he wasn’t exactly an exemplary president.
I apologize for introdcing the misunderstanding in the first place, especially as I know damn well that impeachment = indictment. As you point out, though, it’s still no balance to a 25 year term.
I figure the typical American political reaction to a 25 year presidential term would be to reduce the president’s authority. If it had been in place since 1789 I would expect to see the president as mostly a figurehead with something like the Cabinet running the Executive with four or even 2 year terms. That might not be so bad.