CDZ Time for One-Term Presidents?

[320 Years of History]

If the Founders envisioned a lifetime President, they would have provided for it. George Washington's single greatest achievement was opposing such a position and voluntarily stepping down after his second term. This was accepted by the entire country as unwritten gospel until Franklin Roosevelt* seized upon WW2 as an excuse to violate this principle in 1940. He then compounded this breach by concealing his declining health from the public while running for a fourth term in 1944, thus unilaterally appointing his own successor (VP Harry Truman).

Given unlimited terms of office, a President could potentially use his appointment powers to create a defacto one-party state. That is why the Constitution had to be amended to two terms.

*FDR refused to even discuss the free-falling economy with his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) before his inauguration in March 1933, some four months after his election. As a result, the Constitution was amended to move up the inauguration date to January.

The Constitution and the Inauguration of the President

I agree. Washington stepping down is the least celebrated action by a president ever. It's mind boggling as to how different our history would be had he not.

Off Topic:
There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck." Two obvious examples:

• All men are created equal, but some are not. We can live with that for now. Let our descendants deal with it.
• All men are created equal, but women are not their equal, at least in terms of suffrage. Let someone else deal with that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Time for One-Term Presidents?"

Yes.

One six-year term.

 

[oldsoul]

The idea of limiting the quantity of terms for a President effectively says, "to hell with what the majority of the nation wants and would vote for; you gotta go." That seems directly in opposition to the principles we were founded upon.

I disagree. IMHO, the Founders saw political office as something one did in service to one's country, not as a career. To a large dregree they saw the government being run (on all levels) by common, ordinary citizens who would continue (in most cases), their careers while in office. Whether that be a farmer, lawyer, or teacher, it didn't matter. Most of them never saw public office as a career in and of it's self. Therfore, one could reasonably say that they never envisioned a person serving more than, maybe as much as, two or three terms in any office, and not much more in total.

 

[jwoodie]

There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck."

Actually the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

Fate of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence

Calling them f*ckers says a lot more more about you than it does about them.

That's why no one asks you.

 

[oldsoul]

If the Founders envisioned a lifetime President, they would have provided for it. George Washington's single greatest achievement was opposing such a position and voluntarily stepping down after his second term. This was accepted by the entire country as unwritten gospel until Franklin Roosevelt* seized upon WW2 as an excuse to violate this principle in 1940. He then compounded this breach by concealing his declining health from the public while running for a fourth term in 1944, thus unilaterally appointing his own successor (VP Harry Truman).

Given unlimited terms of office, a President could potentially use his appointment powers to create a defacto one-party state. That is why the Constitution had to be amended to two terms.

*FDR refused to even discuss the free-falling economy with his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) before his inauguration in March 1933, some four months after his election. As a result, the Constitution was amended to move up the inauguration date to January.

The Constitution and the Inauguration of the President

I agree. Washington stepping down is the least celebrated action by a president ever. It's mind boggling as to how different our history would be had he not.

Off Topic:
There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck." Two obvious examples:

• All men are created equal, but some are not. We can live with that for now. Let our descendants deal with it.
• All men are created equal, but women are not their equal, at least in terms of suffrage. Let someone else deal with that.

When you come up with a better founding document that the US Constitution, and accually get the states to agree to it, I will give your statement consideration. Until then, be thankful that they safe guarded your right to say such hateful things.

 

[320 Years of History]

If the Founders envisioned a lifetime President, they would have provided for it. George Washington's single greatest achievement was opposing such a position and voluntarily stepping down after his second term. This was accepted by the entire country as unwritten gospel until Franklin Roosevelt* seized upon WW2 as an excuse to violate this principle in 1940. He then compounded this breach by concealing his declining health from the public while running for a fourth term in 1944, thus unilaterally appointing his own successor (VP Harry Truman).

Given unlimited terms of office, a President could potentially use his appointment powers to create a defacto one-party state. That is why the Constitution had to be amended to two terms.

*FDR refused to even discuss the free-falling economy with his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) before his inauguration in March 1933, some four months after his election. As a result, the Constitution was amended to move up the inauguration date to January.

The Constitution and the Inauguration of the President

I agree. Washington stepping down is the least celebrated action by a president ever. It's mind boggling as to how different our history would be had he not.

Off Topic:
There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck." Two obvious examples:

• All men are created equal, but some are not. We can live with that for now. Let our descendants deal with it.
• All men are created equal, but women are not their equal, at least in terms of suffrage. Let someone else deal with that.

When you come up with a better founding document that the US Constitution, and accually get the states to agree to it, I will give your statement consideration. Until then, be thankful that they safe guarded your right to say such hateful things.

My recognizing the flaws and weaknesses in the Constitution the founders got ratified in no way suggests I can or could have done better. One need not be able to do better to also see that what one has accomplished is imperfect or that it could have been improved upon.

 

[320 Years of History]

There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck."

Actually the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

Fate of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence

Calling them f*ckers says a lot more more about you than it does about them.

That's why no one asks you.

I don't care if they each sacrificed their first born. That still doesn't make what they achieved ideal, near ideal or anything other than exactly what it is: that which they achieved.

 

[Stephanie]

it's time for a lot changes with this government, congress and the Supreme court.

no more supreme's for life
term limits on Senate and house seats.
after Obama I could go for one term of a President.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The founders didn't originally define there be a limited quantity of terms for the President. I think we should return to that. If one is disinclined to run as were Jefferson and Washington, fine. If one is indifferent about holding the office, but willing if their party/nation calls them to and re-elects them to do, fine. Forcing a President into "lame duck" status is, IMO, absurd and as ill advised as was prohibition. Two "dumbass" amendments to the U.S. Constitution ratified in succession.

I agree that telling people for whom they're allowed to vote is stupid, but in defense of accuracy the two amendments were the 18th & 22nd, ratified almost 30 years apart.

It would be stupid to tell people who they can vote for if they weren't abysmally ignorant. They are. As a result of their ignorance we elect the worst that humanity has to offer, rather than the best.

Democracy was something that smart people forced onto ignorant people. The framers of our system of government were bold experimenters, but not reckless. They were determined to make sure the ignorant masses would not vote. If they did, the FFs feared, elections would be manipulated, and the real value of democracy would be lost. How can anyone believe that they were not right? How can anyone believe that our democratic experiment has not failed as a result of our ignoring their concerns? Term limits are a means of getting the system back on track.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The problem with a "lame duck" status is not one of presidential failure, it's one of media failure. The media can't wait to get to the next horse race, because that's the kind of garbage they sell for a living. It's a congressional failure, which exists because of American ignorance. Fill the congress with responsible people, there to "do something" rather than "be something" and the president will be able to function until the day they leave office. Break the party system and true coalitions will form across partisan lines, as thry used to do. None of these things will come about as a result of a further limit to presidential terms.

 

[Elvis Obama]

If the Founders envisioned a lifetime President, they would have provided for it. George Washington's single greatest achievement was opposing such a position and voluntarily stepping down after his second term. This was accepted by the entire country as unwritten gospel until Franklin Roosevelt* seized upon WW2 as an excuse to violate this principle in 1940. He then compounded this breach by concealing his declining health from the public while running for a fourth term in 1944, thus unilaterally appointing his own successor (VP Harry Truman).

Given unlimited terms of office, a President could potentially use his appointment powers to create a defacto one-party state. That is why the Constitution had to be amended to two terms.

*FDR refused to even discuss the free-falling economy with his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) before his inauguration in March 1933, some four months after his election. As a result, the Constitution was amended to move up the inauguration date to January.

The Constitution and the Inauguration of the President

I agree. Washington stepping down is the least celebrated action by a president ever. It's mind boggling as to how different our history would be had he not.

Off Topic:
There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck." Two obvious examples:

• All men are created equal, but some are not. We can live with that for now. Let our descendants deal with it.
• All men are created equal, but women are not their equal, at least in terms of suffrage. Let someone else deal with that.

The FFs were pretty bold, but they couldn't reform every aspect of society. Our foundational documents are vague, because they couldn't settle everything on paper. They were aware that these changes would have to be tested and evolve in the messy real world, not in the star chamber of a constitutional convention. They created a living document, and their intention was to allow it to change in response to real world forces.
We're the ones who have failed. We were given a high maintenance system, and have failed to maintain it.

 

[320 Years of History]

The idea of limiting the quantity of terms for a President effectively says, "to hell with what the majority of the nation wants and would vote for; you gotta go." That seems directly in opposition to the principles we were founded upon.

I disagree. IMHO, the Founders saw political office as something one did in service to one's country, not as a career. To a large dregree they saw the government being run (on all levels) by common, ordinary citizens who would continue (in most cases), their careers while in office. Whether that be a farmer, lawyer, or teacher, it didn't matter. Most of them never saw public office as a career in and of it's self. Therfore, one could reasonably say that they never envisioned a person serving more than, maybe as much as, two or three terms in any office, and not much more in total.

As a practical matter, I agree with you re: the Framers' view that political service wouldn't be a career pursuit. As a matter of their feeling that it should necessarily be so that any federal elective office be term limited, the majority of them clearly didn't want to go that far, and they surely could have. Indeed, most state constitutions of the day had explicitly defined term limits. There's no question they understood the pros and cons of assigning a limited quantity of terms for the federal executive and chose deliberately not to specify them for federal office holders. And yet they actively, by majority vote opted not to include them in the Constitution. One must ask oneself, "why might that be?" An informed answer is found not just by thinking so, but rather by conducting a critical examination of the Framers' thoughts and words on the matter.

I tried to make this as clear as possible in a short post some time earlier in this thread and there remains "pushback." God only knows why....Succinctly, the Framers did not intend to limit the terms a President, U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator may hold. Period. They thought about it at length (you'll see that below), both in and outside the Convention. Indeed there were opposing points of view on the matter, but in the end, they decided not to implement term limits, and they left us with well articulated and documented reasons for their decision. Read them!

Background
The Framers’ general philosophical disposition tended to distrust the concentration of power in any one body over a period of time. Heavily influenced by European Enlightenment philosophers, the Founding Fathers had a healthy distrust of people. They understood human nature to be intrinsically motivated by selfish desires, although institutions could channel this base impulse toward the common good. The risk of evil behavior, then, was something to guard against when designing a system of government. History, not just our recent and current election cycles, provided the Framers with many examples of demagogues and tyrants who used their popularity to advance their interests over the interests of society as a whole. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist #70:

Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind.​

When designing the new Constitution, the Framers were influenced largely by their firsthand experiences with governance. The systems on which they based their opinions, then, were primarily the British rule and the government created by the Articles of Confederation. Also of great import, however, were the systems of rule in place in the various states. In order to understand the context of the Framers’ decisions regarding term limits, then, it is instructive to look at these contemporary cases.

An examination of state constitutions reveals that in most cases, there were limitations on length of rule, especially for the executive. Often, the requirement was not a simple cap on the number of years in office, but rather a requirement that there be some rotation between administrations. The governor of Virginia, for example, “shall not continue in that office longer than three Years successively, nor be eligible until the expiration of four Years after he shall have been out of that office.” In other cases, the constitutions prohibited an individual from serving more than a certain number of years. All told, it was common practice for officials to be required to vacate their office – at least temporarily – after a certain period of service: Delaware limited re-election of the executive, Georgia limited the governor to hold office only one of every three years, New York senators were not eligible for two consecutive years, North Carolina’s governor could only serve three out of every six years, Pennsylvania required congressmen to only serve four out of every seven years, and in South Carolina a governor who served two years was ineligible for the next four.

​

The elimination of term limits in the Constitution, a departure from the common practice of the time, provoked an extraordinary outburst among the opponents of the new system. Already fearful of the greater powers the Constitution endowed to the federal government, anti-Federalists argued that the new system allowed long-serving officials to become a virtual aristocracy, divorced from the will of the masses. Interestingly, they seemed to use the Federalists’ own opinions of mankind against them. It was, after all, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, who had written, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” AntiFederalists argued that, indeed, men were not angels, but the proposed Constitution’s functionality seemed to require elected officials to be abnormally upright men.

Rebuttals to the exclusion of term limits often dealt with the Framers’ implicit assumption that the men elected to office would have an interest in preserving the republican system, and so would avoid usurping authority. Yet, as one individual objected, “Good men will generally govern well with almost any constitution: but why in laying the foundation of the social system, need we unnecessarily leave a door open to improper regulations?” Constitutions, the thought went, should guard against the worst elements of society, rather than hope for the good will of the best. Indeed, government itself tended to be corruptive, so there was no insurance that even a good man, once elected, would continue to act for the best interests of his constituency. As another anti-Federalist wrote,

In a government consisting of but a few members, elected for long periods, and far removed from the observation of the people, but few changes in the ordinary course of elections take place among the members; they become in some measure a fixed body, and often inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and the fountain of corruption.​

Anti-Federalists believed that it was unlikely that the people would use periodic elections to oust corrupt officials; based on examples of various European governments, it was believed that power was much easier for the common people to give than to revoke.

The situation in the American case was especially dangerous, because the size of the country would require that most citizens would be located far away from their representatives, and hence have little oversight. People felt that officials

will for the most part of the time be absent from the state they represent, and associate with such company as will possess very little of the feelings of the middling class of people. For it is to be remembered that there is to be a federal city, and the inhabitants of it will be the great and the mighty of the earth.​

The idea of distance troubled many of those afraid of concentrated power, yet there seemed to be no solution for this problem except to strip the federal government of any real power to govern. The Anti-Federalists had identified the great paradox of the American system of government: while its institutions could hope to contain the ambition of elected officials, in some measure their good intentions would always be necessary for the system to work. The anti-Federalists thought that this expectation was unreasonable, and that stronger controls should be in place. Patrick Henry declared,

It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? ​

It was an argument to which the Federalists had little rejoinder.

As a devoted student of European history, Jefferson believed that the precedent of other nations bode poorly for the American experiment. In his initial reaction after reading the manuscript of the new Constitution, Jefferson wrote, “The… feature I dislike, and greatly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President.” His especial concern was with the executive, whom he envisioned gaining the powers of a virtual king. He wrote,

What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life.​

The history of other states, in other words, indicated that the people were loath to use their power to depose an executive. It is indicative of the strength of the anti-Federalist argument that a person of the stature of Thomas Jefferson would express serious concerns about the re-eligibility of elected Federal officials.

The strong objections of anti-Federalists should not be taken as a sign that the Framers had dismissed the ideas of term limits with little consideration. Indeed, it was one of the most heavily debated changes from the Articles of Confederation. The Framers feared above all that they would be creating a system that “would render the Executive a monarchy, of the worst kind, to wit an elective one.” Indeed, on several separate occasions individuals proposed amendments that would limit the consecutive service of officials. Based on James Madison’s notes on the Philadelphia Convention, explicit discussion of term limits for elected officials arose on seven days: June 1, June 25, June 26, July 19, July 24, July 25, and August 14. On each of these occasions, the Framers debated, in excruciating detail, the advantages and disadvantages of limiting officials’ eligibility. Guided by the principle that “we ought to be governed by reason, not by chance,” the Framers hoped to use logical discourse to arrive at the ideal system of government. They debated the length of terms, systems of rotation, and limits on service. Heated and rational arguments on both sides of the issues arose often.

In the end, however, the suggestions of limiting re-eligibility of officials were voted down by a majority of Convention members. How could it be that these men were willing to make such a radical departure from the established precedent of republican rule? As John Dickenson admonished, “Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us.” There were many essential aspects of the colonists’ treasured system of government – such as trial by jury – that as theory may have seemed illogical or unworkable. Thus the safest course would be to adhere as closely to the tried and true system of government as possible. The reason for deviating from the precedent of limited terms must have been compelling indeed to induce such a radical departure. In looking at the reasoning behind the change, it seems that there is no single answer: the Framers were not of one mind but disagreed frequently – they came from different backgrounds and thought in different ways. [Seem familiar?] Rather than attempting to identify a single reason for eliminating term limits, it is important to consider the variety of factors that were involved in the decision.

Reasons for the Decision
One of the primary reasons the Framers were comfortable allowing there to be no term limits in the executive case was surprisingly simplistic. It seems that the Founding Fathers assumed that George Washington naturally would be the first president, and that he would be trustworthy and moral. Thomas Jefferson, not a part of the Constitutional Convention, even had the sense that “There is no doubt that General. Washington will accept the presidentship, though he is silent on the subject." Other Framers actively worked to ensure that Washington would be their first leader. Alexander Hamilton, in particular, took it upon himself to recruit the reluctant General back to public life, writing,

I take it for granted, Sir, you have concluded to comply with what will no doubt be the general call of your country in relation to the new government. You will permit me to say that it is indispensable you should lend yourself to its first operations—It is to little purpose to have introduced a system, if the weightiest influence is not given to its firm establishment, in the outset.​

Leaders in the new United States both expected and needed the leadership of a statesman of Washington’s caliber.

At the time of the Convention, however, the Framers could not have known exactly how Washington would rule, even if he did accept the position. The situation was neatly summarized by the Revolutionary War hero Marquis de Lafayette, who wrote to Jefferson,

What do You think of the powers of the president? I am afraid that our friends are gone a little too far on the other side -- But suppose it is the Case, and General Washington is the president, I know him too well not to think He will find the danger, and lessen the authority Before He Goes over.​

The Framers were not all-powerful: there were many issues brought up at the Convention that simply could not be satisfactorily addressed while still allowing the Constitution to be ratified. This resulted, at times, in some issues being sidestepped entirely. Just as the institution of slavery was put on a back burner to be dealt with at a less contentious time, so, too, was the issue of executive term limits ignored for the time being. The Framers anticipated having a just ruler in Washington, and may have simply been satisfied with getting through the first few years of the republican experiment.

Other factors in the decision to exclude term limits, however, were more deeply considered. One prominent reason was the thought that citizens should be able to choose for themselves the best person to represent them. During the Constitutional debates, James Wilson demanded, “did you suppose the people of Penna. had not good sense enough to receive a good Government?" The electoral system places the responsibility for choosing delegates in the hands of the people, and it assumes that they can do so effectively. Roger Sherman was also “agst. the doctrine of rotation as throwing out of office the men best qualifyed to execute its duties.” If the constituents in an elective district chose, as they should, the best man to represent them, that representative still may be the best choice a few years later. The Constitution, then, would be doing those citizens a disservice by forcibly removing that delegate from service. Rufus King argued, “he who has proved himself to be most fit for an Office, ought not to be excluded by the constitution from holding it.” Term limits, many of the Framers thought, would unnecessarily limit the choice of voters, perhaps to the detriment of representatives’ quality.

Another point of view was that re-election would be a positive source of stability. The Framers feared the fickle passions of the mob, and their efforts to thwart the will of the majority are embodied throughout the Constitution. The Senate, in particular, was conceived as a body of enlightened citizens who would act in the best long-term interests of the nation. This chamber would benefit especially from being able to hold office over a long period of time, in keeping with their extended influence over the legislature. As James Madison argued,

This reflection wd. naturally suggest that the Govt. be so constituted, as that one of its branches might have an oppy. of acquiring a competent knowledge of the public interests Another reflection equally becoming a people on such an occasion, wd. be that they themselves, as well as a numerous body of Representatives, were liable to err also, from fickleness and passion. A necessary fence agst. this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens, whose limited number, and firmness might seasonably interpose agst. impetuous councils.​

Keeping their office for a long period, then, would discourage giving weight to political fads, and instead focus Senators on working for long-term stability. As a counterpoint to the fear of the tyranny of entrenched leadership, Senators being permanently re-eligible would provide protection against the tyranny of the mob-like majority.

The Framers thought that the possibility of re-election also encouraged better service during each term of office. The broad concept that re-election would lead to better representation took several forms in practicality. First, if elections were considered as a sort of performance review, good work in office would lead to re-election, forming a self-perpetuating cycle. As Roger Sherman phrased it, “Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election.”

Since the Constitution provided for regular and frequent elections, representatives would be forced to be mindful of their constituents throughout their term of office. Madison went so far as to describe the possibility of re-election as “the principal motive to the faithful discharge of its duties.” Roger Morris felt that term limits “will destroy the great incitement to merit public esteem by taking away the hope of being rewarded with a reappointment. It may give a dangerous turn to one of the strongest passions in the human breast. The love of fame is the great spring to noble & illustrious actions.” The Framers assumed that office-holders would naturally seek re-election, and that they would see good representation as the means to that end.

The Framers also believed that the possibility of re-election enhanced the prestige of the office, and would encourage more well-qualified men to consider serving. The Framers gave great consideration to how rulers would behave after their rule was over. The idea of a former ruler simply living in society without power was highly problematic for the Framers. They believed that he could be shamed by his service, or by losing the privileges he had become accustomed to holding. Madison wrote that during the debates

t was contended that the prospect of necessary degradation, would discourage the most dignified characters from aspiring to the office, would take away the principal motive to the faithful discharge of its duties--the hope of being rewarded with a reappointment, would stimulate ambition to violent efforts for holding over the constitutional term--and instead of producing an independent administration, and a firmer defence of the constitutional rights of the department, would render the officer more indifferent to the importance of a place which he would soon be obliged to quit for ever, and more ready to yield to the incroachmts.​

No true statesman, in other words, would want to experience the ignominy of being stripped of his title.


[There are additional reasons, but this post is longer than I had ever wanted it to be. I'm going to just list out the rest as bullets. If you insist on them, I'll give you the references that support the additional reasons I'm listing.]

Additional reasons:

• Not providing a method of re-election could divorce the officeholder’s interests from those of his constituents. Knowing the fixed limit of his term in office, he might be encouraged to act in a way to benefit himself rather than the citizens.
  
• A person forced to leave office by law could easily stimulate ambition to violent efforts for holding over the constitutional term.
  
• Executives, in particular, would be interested in eventually becoming members of the legislature, the most powerful branch. Limiting the term of the executive’s service, then, could create problems in the separation of powers.
  
• The Framers had great faith in the ability of institutions to prevent corruption and tyranny from developing among re-eligible officeholders. The entire Constitution was designed to prevent immoral actions, and even to channel man’s selfish impulses toward achieving the greater good.
  
• The elective basis for rulers would necessarily limit the power that could be exercised by the people’s elected leaders.

When attempting to remedy the problems of the Articles of Convention, the Framers tried to create an institution that would guide the ambitions of men toward moral actions. They had a keen awareness of the defects of human nature, but believed that systems of government could overcome these inherent failings. Contrary to their concerns about power-hungry leaders, however, the Framers chose not to include a limit on how long politicians could hold an office. As a group, the men showed myriad motivations: belief that re-eligibility would promote good service, fear of the interplay between the branches, or even simple faith that leaders would execute their duties faithfully. Their complex (or at times strikingly simplistic) motivations serve as a lesson for modern Constitutional scholars and elected officials (one would hope too the "peanut gallery" of characters that sometimes "contribute" to discussions on USMB) that determining the Framers’ intent often provides few easy answers.

Afterthought
I find it laughably pathetic that someone (I don't recall now who) created this thread proposing a single term limit for the President and in the OP made not even the barest attempt to show that the many reasons for which the Framers chose not to include any term limits no longer stand valid. Making such an empty counter proposal to such a well considered and time tested decision, is to me, little but an indication that one just wants what one wants for no good reason other than that one wants it and is willing to believe that what one wants is "justified" because one wants it. Such a proposal is nothing but intellectual folly. I can only hope it was presented for entertainment's sake.

 

[jillian]

Let's face it: The second term for most Presidents is generally a lackluster attempt to burnish their legacies with meaningless (or worse) posturing. If a President's major goals can't be achieved in four years, they probably won't be. Why not turn over the reins of government to somebody else who wants something new to accomplish? (James Polk was a model President in this regard.)

The two front runners in this year's election are both in their late sixties. I would like to see both of them select VP running mates who could take over four years hence without facing a steep learning curve. Is this possible? The Constitution originally awarded the Vice Presidency to the candidate with the second most electoral votes. Maybe our political parties should do the same thing with respect to delegate votes.

What say you?

no.

term limits take away any incentive for a politician to do anything for the people he represents.

but i guess nice try....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution should be amended to repeal the 22nd Amendment – a classic example of unintended consequences.

Presidents should either be allowed to run for reelection as often as they like, or, after repealing the 22nd Amendment, amend the Constitution again creating a single six-year term.

Either way, the 22nd Amendment is a failure.

 

[Gracie]

4 or 6 year term max, and lose the electoral votes.
Sometimes it takes more than 4 years to fix the last fuck ups.

 

[oldsoul]

If the Founders envisioned a lifetime President, they would have provided for it. George Washington's single greatest achievement was opposing such a position and voluntarily stepping down after his second term. This was accepted by the entire country as unwritten gospel until Franklin Roosevelt* seized upon WW2 as an excuse to violate this principle in 1940. He then compounded this breach by concealing his declining health from the public while running for a fourth term in 1944, thus unilaterally appointing his own successor (VP Harry Truman).

Given unlimited terms of office, a President could potentially use his appointment powers to create a defacto one-party state. That is why the Constitution had to be amended to two terms.

*FDR refused to even discuss the free-falling economy with his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) before his inauguration in March 1933, some four months after his election. As a result, the Constitution was amended to move up the inauguration date to January.

The Constitution and the Inauguration of the President

I agree. Washington stepping down is the least celebrated action by a president ever. It's mind boggling as to how different our history would be had he not.

Off Topic:
There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck." Two obvious examples:

• All men are created equal, but some are not. We can live with that for now. Let our descendants deal with it.
• All men are created equal, but women are not their equal, at least in terms of suffrage. Let someone else deal with that.

When you come up with a better founding document that the US Constitution, and accually get the states to agree to it, I will give your statement consideration. Until then, be thankful that they safe guarded your right to say such hateful things.

My recognizing the flaws and weaknesses in the Constitution the founders got ratified in no way suggests I can or could have done better. One need not be able to do better to also see that what one has accomplished is imperfect or that it could have been improved upon.

Hence the provisions within the constitution to "improve" it, AKA amendments. While you may have intended to simply point out the "flaws and weaknesses", what you accually did was to personally insult them. Thus, my reaction.

 

[johnedwards]

Let's face it: The second term for most Presidents is generally a lackluster attempt to burnish their legacies with meaningless (or worse) posturing. If a President's major goals can't be achieved in four years, they probably won't be. Why not turn over the reins of government to somebody else who wants something new to accomplish? (James Polk was a model President in this regard.)

The two front runners in this year's election are both in their late sixties. I would like to see both of them select VP running mates who could take over four years hence without facing a steep learning curve. Is this possible? The Constitution originally awarded the Vice Presidency to the candidate with the second most electoral votes. Maybe our political parties should do the same thing with respect to delegate votes.

What say you?

I fully agree

 

[320 Years of History]

If the Founders envisioned a lifetime President, they would have provided for it. George Washington's single greatest achievement was opposing such a position and voluntarily stepping down after his second term. This was accepted by the entire country as unwritten gospel until Franklin Roosevelt* seized upon WW2 as an excuse to violate this principle in 1940. He then compounded this breach by concealing his declining health from the public while running for a fourth term in 1944, thus unilaterally appointing his own successor (VP Harry Truman).

Given unlimited terms of office, a President could potentially use his appointment powers to create a defacto one-party state. That is why the Constitution had to be amended to two terms.

*FDR refused to even discuss the free-falling economy with his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) before his inauguration in March 1933, some four months after his election. As a result, the Constitution was amended to move up the inauguration date to January.

The Constitution and the Inauguration of the President

I agree. Washington stepping down is the least celebrated action by a president ever. It's mind boggling as to how different our history would be had he not.

Off Topic:
There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck." Two obvious examples:

• All men are created equal, but some are not. We can live with that for now. Let our descendants deal with it.
• All men are created equal, but women are not their equal, at least in terms of suffrage. Let someone else deal with that.

When you come up with a better founding document that the US Constitution, and accually get the states to agree to it, I will give your statement consideration. Until then, be thankful that they safe guarded your right to say such hateful things.

My recognizing the flaws and weaknesses in the Constitution the founders got ratified in no way suggests I can or could have done better. One need not be able to do better to also see that what one has accomplished is imperfect or that it could have been improved upon.

Hence the provisions within the constitution to "improve" it, AKA amendments. While you may have intended to simply point out the "flaws and weaknesses", what you accually did was to personally insult them. Thus, my reaction.

Since when is it an insult to point out one's failings and shortcomings that can be demonstrably shown to indeed be just that? Moreover, just as one cannot libel and slander the dead, one cannot insult them either.

 

[oldsoul]

I agree. Washington stepping down is the least celebrated action by a president ever. It's mind boggling as to how different our history would be had he not.

Off Topic:
There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck." Two obvious examples:

• All men are created equal, but some are not. We can live with that for now. Let our descendants deal with it.
• All men are created equal, but women are not their equal, at least in terms of suffrage. Let someone else deal with that.

When you come up with a better founding document that the US Constitution, and accually get the states to agree to it, I will give your statement consideration. Until then, be thankful that they safe guarded your right to say such hateful things.

My recognizing the flaws and weaknesses in the Constitution the founders got ratified in no way suggests I can or could have done better. One need not be able to do better to also see that what one has accomplished is imperfect or that it could have been improved upon.

Hence the provisions within the constitution to "improve" it, AKA amendments. While you may have intended to simply point out the "flaws and weaknesses", what you accually did was to personally insult them. Thus, my reaction.

Since when is it an insult to point out one's failings and shortcomings that can be demonstrably shown to indeed be just that? Moreover, just as one cannot libel and slander the dead, one cannot insult them either.

If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today

I thought you to be of higher character and intellect that to need reminding of what you said. So, when has it not been an insult to call a person (dead or not) a "f*cker"? That is what I would call an insult. How would you define it? As to whether or not a person can insult a deceased person, I would wager that if someone where to call your Grandmother a derogatory name, you would see things differently.

 

[320 Years of History]

Off Topic:
There are more than a few actions and remarks of our early leaders that, were they different, our history too would differ. Not the least among them is the ambiguity with which those men imbued the damn documents that include some of the legal guidelines and principles on which they formed a nation. If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today: come up with some half-assed and uncertain solution for issues they couldn't settle, thereby deferring the settlement to future generations. In short, and with a short term stance, they "passed the buck." Two obvious examples:

• All men are created equal, but some are not. We can live with that for now. Let our descendants deal with it.
• All men are created equal, but women are not their equal, at least in terms of suffrage. Let someone else deal with that.

When you come up with a better founding document that the US Constitution, and accually get the states to agree to it, I will give your statement consideration. Until then, be thankful that they safe guarded your right to say such hateful things.

My recognizing the flaws and weaknesses in the Constitution the founders got ratified in no way suggests I can or could have done better. One need not be able to do better to also see that what one has accomplished is imperfect or that it could have been improved upon.

Hence the provisions within the constitution to "improve" it, AKA amendments. While you may have intended to simply point out the "flaws and weaknesses", what you accually did was to personally insult them. Thus, my reaction.

Since when is it an insult to point out one's failings and shortcomings that can be demonstrably shown to indeed be just that? Moreover, just as one cannot libel and slander the dead, one cannot insult them either.

If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today

I thought you to be of higher character and intellect that to need reminding of what you said. So, when has it not been an insult to call a person (dead or not) a "f*cker"? That is what I would call an insult. How would you define it? As to whether or not a person can insult a deceased person, I would wager that if someone where to call your Grandmother a derogatory name, you would see things differently.

Calling someone a "f*cker," is tantamount to defaming or slandering them, insulting them, albeit vaguely. My grandmother or not, one who is living simply cannot defame the dead. Period.

• Can you defame the dead?

It doesn't matter how I feel about someone speaking that way of my dead grandmother. The fact is that she feels no insult and incurs no harm that we can identify. Thus if she's not insulted by one's calling her that, neither am I. No matter how "thin" be her (presumably) decomposed/-ing skin, the fact is that she doesn't care what one says of her. The same is so of the Framers.

FWIW, though none of my ancestors (that I know of) signed the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, some of them were "influencers" in my nation's founding and fought in the Revolutionary War. My use of "f*ckers" applies equally well to them as it does to the men who participated directly in the creation of the U.S.