The rest of the world might not like George W. Bush, but I don’t remember the rest of the world pissing and moaning about American citizens being allowed to vote for who they want the President to be, which is pretty much what the OP is suggesting. I don’t like Bush either, but it’s up to the people of the United States whether or not they want term limits on the Presidency.
Habanero, no offense, but Canada doesn’t just let in anyone who doesn’t like the way their home country’s last election went. Give us a reason we should let you in. Whining isn’t a valid reason.
For Bush to stay in office after January 2009, a total breakdown in governance would be far more likely than a new amendment. That is not to say that I think a total breakdown is likely, but the passage of new laws to keep Bush in office is such a remote possibility that it ain’t gonna happen. Basically, you would need a dismissal of Congress and the state legislatures with implementation of martial law or something along that line – improbable as that is, a repeal of the 22nd amendment is like an asteroid landing in your toilet improbable.
I think the new en vogue conspiracy theory among left wingers should be that another popular, populist, brainless figurehead is found by the Republicans and the Rove/Cheney/Card/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle/Feith/Dobson/Norquist machine (not that the seem to be getting along as of late) aligns themselves behind him/her and we end up with more of the same in governance.
The OP may be unaware that for much of the US’s history, there was no legal limit to how many terms a President could serve. None served more than two, however, for reasons ranging from noble choice in stepping down, to inability to command support, to being dead and thus unable to run.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke the tradition when he was elected for a third term in 1940 and a fourth term in 1944. He was popular enough that a fifth term was certainly conceivable, but a fatal cerebral hemorrhage in 1945 spoiled his chances.
Alarmed at the prospect of another “President for Life,” Congress proposed the Twenty-Second Amendment in 1947. It limits the President to two elected terms, or only one if he’s served more than half of a term to which he was not elected. It was ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951.
Wow. Thanks, Bricker. I knew that for a long time the whole “two terms” thing was just tradition, but I didn’t realise that the law setting it as the limit was passed only so very recently. We don’t do huge amounts of American history in schools over here (UK) - it’s mostly WW’s 1 and 2 (And in that, we don’t learn that much about the USA’s role other than “They came over here and saved our butts”). We did cover the Civil Rights Movement and the Depression, too, though, but that was…uh, I suppose it would be only senior year level over there.
Ayep. Washington refused to run for a third term; Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson all followed suit (though whether it was out of respect for Washington or for health reasons- or complete disgust with politics- is not completely clear).
Ulysess Grant was the first to really try to break the two-term tradition, but failed to gather enough support at the Republican Conventions of 1876 and 1880. (Some of that was due to the “no third term” feelings; some of it was because “Grant” was synonymous with “corruption” by that point, and reform-minded Republicans wanted nothing to do with him).
Theodore Roosevelt refused to run in 1908 due to a combination of the “no third term” rule and a general restlessness, but once his successor Taft proved unwilling to follow in TR’s footsteps, TR had no compunction against trying for a third term in 1912.
FDR was only the third person to try for a third term, and the first to succeed; the “no third term” sentiment did play against him, but not enough to allow Wilkie to defeat him.
