George - Third term?

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Salty, Jul 29, 2006.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,070
    Likes Received:
    216
    Do you think that George Washington should have accepted a third term for President? If so, would that have made a major difference in US history?

    One of the trials Adams faced was the war between France and England.
    (Did you know President Adams recalled Gen Washington back to active duty?)
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. Two terms are enough. FDR should have stopped after two as well.
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,070
    Likes Received:
    216
    The reason was "why change horses in the middle of the river (pending USA involvement in WWII)? Do you think that was a valid reason?

    Salty
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. We weren't even at war in November 1940.
     
  5. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would favor a constitutional amendment to limit the President to a single term of six years.
     
  6. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the only limit there should be to any elected person's term should be the limit of the vote of the people. If they keep electing idiots like Kennedy and Durbin, they deserve what they get.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  7. Jack Matthews

    Jack Matthews
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    1
    They also keep electing idiots like Tom Delay and Bill Frist, but that doesn't mean that terms shouldn't be limited, particularly for the president. Money is the key to winning elections, and in a system where a plurality or simple majority is the requirement to assuming office, the idea that "the people" have spoken isn't accurate. Majorities can become tyrannies, especially when they are fractional in size, and the fact that a simple majority of voters has been convinced to vote for a particular candidate is not a sign that what is being expressed is the "will of the people." In most cases, it is a sign that what is being expressed depends largely on how much money a candidate has to spend on a national election.
     
  8. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    We do have means for removing them from office if they are that bad. We choose not to utilize them. We deserve what we get.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree at times with both Mr. Delay and Mr. Frist, but they are not idiots.

    Are you a liberal, Jack?

    As for Mr. Durbin and Mr. Kennedy they do often support quite foolish policies that enlarge the size and scope of the federal government.
     
    #9 KenH, Jul 30, 2006
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2006
  10. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    The simple fact is that re-election is much easier than the initial election. Term limits are a great idea and most of America supports them, but the people that would need to pass it to make it law are the currently elected politicians and they don’t like the idea of giving up power.

    Politics was never meant to be a career. I think we should cut their pay, eliminate their retirement and benefits, and establish term limits. That would in my opinion be a great improvement to our political system.
     
  11. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,408
    Likes Received:
    70
    I disagree with term limits because of the lame-duck terms they create.
     
  12. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,408
    Likes Received:
    70
    Question for all:

    Do you think Washington would have OK'd the Alien and Sedition Acts?
     
  13. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with KenH, two terms is enough for anyone, including my favorite, RR. GW set an excellent precedent that should have been followed by FDR.


    MP,

    IIRC, it was one of the proposals in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. I like the 4 x 2 limit. I like the possibility of sending a bad one home after four years.

    Term limits were also proposed for those in Congress in 1787 but it was rejected. I understand their appeal but I both agree with JB, that voters should be able to continue to elect idiots, whether R or D, whether of the Left or Right, and I like the possibility of keeping a good one. However, I don't like the fact that longevity gives incumbents the opportunity to build large war chests that make unseating them such a long shot, as in the case of our generally liberal Congressman from Huntsville.


    NCT,

    Actually, as you may remember, it was in fact passed and ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a decision with which I agree. It was an excellent SCOTUS debate in that both sides made some strong original intent arguments, I think it was Breyer on one side and Thomas on the other. Regulating the terms of Congress should only be done under the Constitution. I certainly agree that their retirements and benefits should be scaled WAY back.


    StefanM,

    Excellent question. IMO, he would not have. He was in support of a Bill of Rights. Though he was strongly influenced by Hamilton, with whom he wound up concurring on the National Bank, I believe that both Jefferson and Madison would have prevailed on him to veto such acts. Actually, he might have signed the Alien Act, which was less onerous and at least within the right of a sovereign state, IMO.

    What do you think?
     
  14. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,408
    Likes Received:
    70
    You may be right on the Alien Act, but I agree with you that I doubt he would have signed the others. Washington's rejection of political parties probably would have prevented the whole "power-grab" mentality of the Sedition Acts, IMO.
     
  15. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,070
    Likes Received:
    216
    How can term limts be unconstitutional when the US Constitution has an amendment limiting the terms of President? I understand Amendement XX does not address the terms for Congress, but it does set a precedent.

    Salty
     
  16. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,072
    Likes Received:
    101
    The fact that the constitution, by amendment, limits the terms a president may serve is in fact a precedent against legislation of such limits for legislators.

    The terms of a president are limited only by an amendment to the Constitution; it would therefore take a similar amendment to apply a limitation to legislators.
     
  17. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,070
    Likes Received:
    216

    Nowhere in the (orginial) constitution did it prohibit term limts. The admendment only clarified Presidental terms. If the Admendment XX applied only to the President, then any other Term limit law would be unconstitutional.
    For example, here in Salt City, the mayor is limted to two terms. Would you say that ordinance is illegal?

    Salty
     
  18. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,072
    Likes Received:
    101
    True.

    It also gave no power to set them. Term limits were not unheard of during the colonial period. The Articles of Confederation had term limits. There was debate on term limits in the constitution convention, and three states asked for term limits.

    Given that term limits were discussed - and rejected - it seems clear that the intent was not to have term limits, certainly not limits imposed by the states. In Terms Limits v. Thornton, Justice Stevens noted that the states had not previously thought they could add qualifications for office, with the odd result that some states had property requirements for state legislators but not for federal lawmakers.

    Why so? The amendment applies only to the office in question and in no way touches qualifications for other offices.

    Of course not. Mayor is an office governed by local law; it is not created by the Constitution. States and localities have control over qualifications for their offices.
     

Share This Page

Loading...