No.
Daily.
Well, I don’t want to piss on the idea entirely, it can be beneficial in some ways. It’s not a terrible idea. But it does have some drawbacks.
I think if we did implement it we’d probably want a recall process to go with it. Nothing ideological either, the ONLY candidate that could replace the President would be his VP and the VP would not be subject to recall. That would limit recalls to scandal or incompetence.
Northern Piper wrote: “The Democratic President had nothing to do with a constitutional amendment.”
Wikipedia begs to differ:
"Four years later, in the election of 1944, Roosevelt defeated New York governor Thomas E. Dewey to win an unprecedented fourth term. While he effectively quelled rumors of his poor health during the campaign, Roosevelt’s health was in reality deteriorating. On April 12, 1945, only 82 days after his fourth inauguration, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died.
Near the end of the 1944 campaign, Thomas Dewey announced support of an amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, “four terms, or sixteen years (which is what Roosevelt would have served had he lived until 1949), is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.”[5] The Republican-controlled 80th Congress approved a Joint resolution “proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to the terms of office of the president.” in March 1947;[6] it was signed by Speaker of the House Joseph W. Martin and acting President pro tempore of the Senate William F. Knowland.[7] The ratification process for the 22nd Amendment was completed on February 27, 1951, 3 years, 343 days after it was sent to the states. The new amendment’s 2-term limit did not apply (due to the grandfather clause in Section 1) to the incumbent president, Harry S. Truman. He remained eligible for election to more than two terms.[6]"
Let’s see. Proposed by the losing candidate, enacted by a Congress of the other party. Yep, no partisanship there, folks.
:dubious:
On reflection, I can split the difference and agree to fortnightly. This would avoid elections falling on the Sabbath for most observant Sabbath-observers, while not privileging one time of year over another. Deal?
To the OP: What you are suggesting is pretty close to what Putin has had to work with in Russia. So, consider that.
Wow, Dewey even went for the “freedom” buzzword.
OK, so, this was clearly an attempt to smash the incredibly popular New Deal government and its overwhelmingly dominant political faction. I bet none of the guys who voted for it wanted their own legislative offices limited in that way. What a crock.
It wasn’t all that partisan, given that it took a two thirds vote, which Republicans didn’t have, and three fourths of states to ratify, most of which Republicans didn’t control.
EVen Democrats were not thrilled at the idea of a four term President. FDR held down a lot of even more progressive candidates who could have won. He locked down the White House for 20 years if you count Truman, his handpicked guy, and you could even say he locked it down for 28 years, since Ike’s election was in part a normal process of change when one party is in power too long.
Two terms was our tradition until FDR broke it, and it was the general consensus of both parties and the public that his case was exceptional due to the war, and that it should not be repeated.
Not even in case of war?
A tradition can be broken in exceptional circumstances without causing a constitutional crisis. A constitutional amendment broken in such a circumstance would be a constitutional crisis.
If voters want to say, “You’ve had your turn, go home,” that’s fine. That was my attitude toward the Clintons. That was my attitude toward GWB after one term. But denying the option in the constitution? No, that’s silly.
Because even in hindsight, FDR was not essential to the war. No President is. And a VP, assuming he or she is well selected, is more than enough continuity if voters want it.
Oh, so the power behind the throne can stay the same, just with a different puppet n the front.
See, this is why I didn’t support term limits when I first heard of them. You don’t really stop the continuity of families, cabals, factions, or parties. You just create an incentive for the leaders of those factions to wield power informally and unelected, while changing out the face and flak-catcher of the faction.
Who term limits Grover Norquist? He’s been calling the tune for the GOP since 1986. Who even voted for him?
Term limits are a fake solution and a sick joke.
That’s a reasonable argument, the shadow government exists and the players tend to stay the same for the most part. The thing with Presidential term limits though is that it risks one man rule, which FDR flirted with. An editorial cartoon at the time showed a tall FDR towering over an average citizen saying, “Don’t you trust me?” The citizen responds, “Sure, but who comes after you?” The country was willing to give FDR four terms, but decided in a bipartisan fashion that the two term precedent set by Washington and followed by everyone until FDR was the way to go.
Term limits don’t serve the public. They serve un-elected power centers and offer opportunity to would-be political challengers who don’t expect to enter power on merit otherwise.
Well, if we’re going to talk about unelected power centers, how about that regulatory state, which Democrats and liberal judges have basically given the power of an unelected fourth branch?
The existence of that vast regulatory state is part of the reason Americans are disgusted with government. It’s not directly accountable to the people, and elected officials keep it at arms length for the most part, unless there’s something specific they want it to do.
Conservative politicians are polemically opposed to this, but at the end of the day will always fail to actually do anything about it because they actually want their policies carried out.
Bottom line, it’s not worth thinking about. Neither major party would support limiting everyone to one term at a time, because the rest of the American system of government requires a lot more continuity in order to effect any significant change.
Republicans in general do NOT support democracy, that’s a given. But since they can’t get rid of it, they are sold on maximizing their chances to get and keep power for as long as they can manage, and that means trying to get the same guy elected consecutively as they can.
Besides, all that would happen if they made that Amendment, would be what Russia did: elect a puppet every four years, who would do whatever the REAL guy wanted done.
You forgot about the original Dictator-for-Life, Big Julie himself. He was supposed to be term-limited as dictator to a mere six months, before he decided otherwise.
[del]Multiple Roman dictators did that before Julius Caesar.[/del]
eta: I take that back. I don’t have a citation for that. Maybe I misremembered.
Cincinnatus was notable in that he didn’t.
No. The regulatory state substantially* is *the executive branch, and enforces laws passed by the legislative branch.
T. Jefferson may have suggested idly that laws should expire after 19 years (and that was seen as crazy at the time) but not even he thought that the laws should be completely overhauled with every election, or every twelve years, or whatever.
That’s what the regulatory state is supposed to be, but in practice it’s a bit more than that:
-
Elected officials are rarely held accountable for the regulatory state’s failures or controversial actions. We saw this multiple times in the last eight years. If the President isn’t accountable for the regulatory state, then the regulatory state itself is beyond the reach of voters.
-
Agencies have a great deal of latitude in interpreting relevant statutes that can go way beyond the original intent of them.
-
Abuse of power by agencies is common and relief can be difficult to get if you don’t have an aggressive Republican Congressman or a good lawyer.
Yes/No.
Cincinnatus is important, not because he was the first or last or most powerful dictator, but because he was the first dictator from among those born in the early years of the Republic, and thus, his generation was critical to the survival of the Republic. The people of Rome were themselves responsible for destroying the fundamental legal fabric of the office of Dictator by appointing, of all things, a co-Dictator to Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator (the Delayer).
Later on, Sulla shattered the traditions which surrounded the Dictatorship, by first seizing the state with military force when he had no legal office at all, then making himself Dictator by that force, Proscribing his real or imagined enemies, and finally making himself Dictator for life. He technically resigned his power, but he was in the last year of his life anyway and in no shape to rule.