Nov Election, Candidates Aside...

[mkemse]

Presidential term limits are relatively new -- it wasn't until 1951 that the 22nd Amendment was ratified. And there's only been one President who served more than two terms, so was it such a problem that it needed a Constitutional Amendment to fix?

Apparently so or the 22nd Amendment never would have been passed

[Ragoczy]

Presidential term limits are relatively new -- it wasn't until 1951 that the 22nd Amendment was ratified. And there's only been one President who served more than two terms, so was it such a problem that it needed a Constitutional Amendment to fix?

Apparently so or the 22nd Amendment never would have been passed

Right, because things don't get passed for stupid reasons. Like, say, a bunch of idiots wanting to ban alcohol would never be able to get something like that into the Constitution with disastrous results ...

The 22nd Amendment was a knee-jerk reaction to FDR being elected to four terms -- which only came about because of a unique series of events. The Democrats never would have nominated FDR for a third term except for two things: 1) the Republicans had made significant gains in Congress; and 2) World War II was starting. The Democrats felt that FDRs leadership through the Depression would give him an advantage with the threat facing the US. So he won his third term and then his fourth election was during wartime when it's generally been considered a bad idea to change leadership. If it hadn't been for the war, he likely wouldn't have been nominated, much less elected, for even the third term.

But the concept of a four-term President scared the hell out of Congress and they pushed the Amendment through pretty damn quick.

So let's look at something here -- FDR's leadership is generally credited as a significant reason for the Allied victory in WWII. If the 22nd Amendment had been in place prior to 1930, he would have been ineligible to be President during the war. That Amendment has put us in a position where we may not be able to have the best man for the job as President during a time of crisis and may have to change leadership in the middle of a war some day. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[Thorne]

Right, because things don't get passed for stupid reasons. Like, say, a bunch of idiots wanting to ban alcohol would never be able to get something like that into the Constitution with disastrous results ...

You forgot to hit your sarcasm button for this one, didn't you?

The 22nd Amendment was a knee-jerk reaction to FDR being elected to four terms ... the concept of a four-term President scared the hell out of Congress and they pushed the Amendment through pretty damn quick.

The way I heard it, long ago, is that the Republican Party was so angry about FDR being elected to four terms that it was they who pushed through the amendment. And then they were kicking themselves when Eisenhower had to step down after two terms. (Don't know if that's true, and I'm too lazy to look it up. Chalk it up to anecdotal evidence.)

Like you, I'm up in the air on term limits. It's a great idea when there's a dope in the office, not so good when there's a truly great man there. (Not that I think there are all that many great men, or women, in politics.) But I think it's something that needs to be fair. If Congress wants to impose term limits on the Presidency, then it's only right that there be term limits on Congress as well.