22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

radcen said:

Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.

Click to expand...

Only FDR has ever even attempted to run for more than two terms, to the best of my knowledge...and the Constitution was amended shortly after his death to ensure that no one else could do so. I think that Reagan or Clinton could have been elected for a third term if they had been able to run, and I don't see this as a good thing. One only need to look around the world to see that presidents seeking to hold their office for life are usually dictatorships. Even FDR had some authoritarian tendencies...trying to pack the Supreme Court, the Japanese internment, suspending habeas corpus, etc. If he had lived long enough to see the end of World War II, I don't know if he would have continued down this road, but I'm glad we did not find out. 8 years should be plenty of time for any president to leave their mark.

And I would support "leveling the playing field" with the other branches: I favor giving all senators and representatives a single 6-year term, and all Supreme Court justices a single 19-year term.

StillBallin75 said:

Good point, in such a situation you'd have guys spending less time campaigning and more time actually doing ****.

Click to expand...

The Wiseone has a good idea (single longer terms); I'd like to see 4 year terms for Congressmen...and a 6 year term for President...I think...But, then there is FDR and RR.
Without doubt, the two year term for members of the House is ridiculous..The Amendment XXII did not go far enough.

radcen said:

Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?


snip...


Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Being limited to only two terms a president has nothing to worry about during his 2nd term.If both the house and senate comprise of a majority that is similar to the president's ideology then the president basically has the ability to try to enact everything he wants to that he would not dare to enact during his first term. This is why Bush pushed for amnesty for illegals. Reagan passed Amnesty for illegals, a ban machine guns made after 1986 as well as establish a list of classified persons which enabled back ground checks to be pushed through.

I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

snip..

And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.

Click to expand...

A high incumbent reelection rate with a very high disapproval rating of elected officials says that those fears are not overblown.
The reason we have elected officials with a high disapproval rating getting reelected is due to three reasons.

1.Politically ignorant voters.

2.Die hard party-tards.(This how many people can vote for Romney despite being ideologically opposed to him,party above principal, these scum would sell their soul to the devil if it meant their party would win)

3.voters with short attention spans when it comes to outrage.


It is because of those three reason how a president could get 3,4 or more terms.All elected officials from the lowly city councilor/alderman all the way to the president should have term limits.

earthworm said:

The Wiseone has a good idea (single longer terms); I'd like to see 4 year terms for Congressmen...and a 6 year term for President...I think...But, then there is FDR and RR.
Without doubt, the two year term for members of the House is ridiculous..The Amendment XXII did not go far enough.

Click to expand...

Single terms, even if longer, would just make them lame ducks from the very beginning.

jamesrage said:

I disagree. Being limited to only two terms a president has nothing to worry about during his 2nd term.If both the house and senate comprise of a majority that is similar to the president's ideology then the president basically has the ability to try to enact everything he wants to that he would not dare to enact during his first term. This is why Bush pushed for amnesty for illegals. Reagan passed Amnesty for illegals, a ban machine guns made after 1986 as well as establish a list of classified persons which enabled back ground checks to be pushed through.

Click to expand...

What you say here can happen. I don't think it is a given. Presidential popularity would play a factor, hence probably why Reagan succeeded and Bush failed at essentially the same thing.

To be fair, my scenario was not intended as a given either, just what I see as a more likely scenario.

jamesrage said:

A high incumbent reelection rate with a very high disapproval rating of elected officials says that those fears are not overblown.
The reason we have elected officials with a high disapproval rating getting reelected is due to three reasons.

1.Politically ignorant voters.

2.Die hard party-tards.(This how many people can vote for Romney despite being ideologically opposed to him,party above principal, these scum would sell their soul to the devil if it meant their party would win)

3.voters with short attention spans when it comes to outrage.

Click to expand...

Fair points.

radcen said:

Single terms, even if longer, would just make them lame ducks from the very beginning.

Click to expand...

The only thing that makes a president a lame duck is if the majority of house and senate comprise of those who are ideologically opposite of the president. This is true regardless if the president has a single term, last term or is facing reelection.A single or last term just means that politician does not have to worry about not getting elected.

Presidential popularity would play a factor, hence probably why Reagan succeeded and Bush failed at essentially the same thing.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I do not think amnesty was ever given to illegals before and it it has its been an extremely long time.In Bush's case many people still remember or have been educated on the failure of the Reagan Amnesty. So it is kind of hard to trust the government on another so called immigration reform compromise when they have not done anything to crack down on illegal immigration. This is why Bush Was not successful.Had Reagan not given amnesty to illegals Bush would have been successful if pushing amnesty. It basically like someone wanting you to loan them money when they have a past of not paying you back.

jamesrage said:

I could be wrong but I do not think amnesty was ever given to illegals before and it it has its been an extremely long time.In Bush's case many people still remember or have been educated on the failure of the Reagan Amnesty. So it is kind of hard to trust the government on another so called immigration reform compromise when they have not done anything to crack down on illegal immigration. This is why Bush Was not successful.Had Reagan not given amnesty to illegals Bush would have been successful if pushing amnesty. It basically like someone wanting you to loan them money when they have a past of not paying you back.

Click to expand...

I'm pulling this out of the deep dark cobweb-covered recesses of my brain, but if I recall correctly Reagan's amnesty was sold as a one-time deal. I do recall some during Bush's attempt saying we shouldn't because we already did it.

Getting way off from the 22nd Amendment, though.

I, for one, am glad we have term limits on the prez, and if I had my way, we'd have one for congress as well.

radcen said:

I'm pulling this out of the deep dark cobweb-covered recesses of my brain, but if I recall correctly Reagan's amnesty was sold as a one-time deal. I do recall some during Bush's attempt saying we shouldn't because we already did it.

Getting way off from the 22nd Amendment, though.

Click to expand...

This is due to the failure of the fist amnesty and the fact the government has proven it can't be trusted to uphold any enforcement provisions.This is why Bush's amnesty failed to pass, not because of term limits.

jamesrage said:

This is due to the failure of the fist amnesty and the fact the government has proven it can't be trusted to uphold any enforcement provisions.This is why Bush's amnesty failed to pass, not because of term limits.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that it was because of term limits, hence my next sentence regarding getting away from the topic.

other.
ive never agreed with term limits.
when the voters think someone has been in office too long,
they can vote them out.
forcing someone out of office,
just to give someone else a turn
is kind of ridiculous.
its not pee-wee soccer.
its not important that everyone gets to play.

Term limits in general are just an acknowledgement that we suck as citizens.

radcen said:

Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this excellent question.


I have been fighting for the repeal of the 22d Amendment since 1972.

It has changed, and not for the better, the whole body politic of this nation.

haymarket said:

We have term limits - always have. They are called regular elections.

Click to expand...

No know better than most on this site that is simply not true. Most districts in the country are "safe". Only wave elections sweep some of those incumbents out, even then a relatively small amount.

a777pilot said:

Thank you for this excellent question.


I have been fighting for the repeal of the 22d Amendment since 1972.

It has changed, and not for the better, the whole body politic of this nation.

Click to expand...

Why? I can't name one president since then that would've been worth keeping around longer than 8 years. Leaders who get too comfortable for too long tend to become tyrants.

radcen said:

Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'd rather limit our Presidents to single terms in office. Maybe then they'd have the balls to do what they campaign on.

samsmart said:

Actually, I'd rather limit our Presidents to single terms in office. Maybe then they'd have the balls to do what they campaign on.

Click to expand...

I'm not really in favor of term limits to begin with, but if we did a single term, then I'd rather have a single six year term.

Having said that, it would only be acceptable* to me if Congress had similar limits. Moving a term limit for the President further in the extreme direction would increase the imbalance of power.

I suspect that part of the reason that Presidents have been unable to get away with more than two terms (barring one), is a couple reasons...

1) The voters can easier identify a single person as being accountable, and are more prone to actually do so. There does seem to be more critical thought and debate put into who the "top person" is, and less into Congressional offices.
2) The President is not the one bringing home the "pork" to their state/district, which ties back into #1.

*- Key word: acceptable

digsbe said:

I'm fine with having a presidential election every 2 years if it means we have shorter terms for bad presidents. We have midterms anyway so I don't see it as adding much more of a burden on people.

Click to expand...

except, of course, you'd have one continuous, never ending political campaign. we almost have that now, but with two year terms we'd have debates beginning the month after the election.

RabidAlpaca said:

Why? I can't name one president since then that would've been worth keeping around longer than 8 years. Leaders who get too comfortable for too long tend to become tyrants.

Click to expand...

That's true and you will get argument from me.

There were a few that should NOT have been there for 8 years and if it had not been for the 22d Amemdment would have been gone after four.

Also, there has been at least one Presient gone after four years that was replaced by a light weight vice the real adult that chose not to run, but to wait four years, because of the 22d Amendment.