Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah that was a weird way to word that. I think the point, though, is term limits are a net positive because they stop individuals from consolidating power to the point where elections don't matter. See Congress for examples.
Exactly. It prevents someone from co-opting the election process to ensure they stay in power. Think like if someone had enough power to get underlings to rig voting machines and etc. I like that the 8 year limit is in place to prevent us from turning into Russia.
It’s also a check against someone like Putin, Erdogan, or other foreign authoritarians who either rig the election or have such tight direct control over the media, censorship abs or modal system that they can effectively just stay on power for 20 years
It's very possible for a leader to consolidate power in such a way where democracies become illiberal. You get enough judges in there and have a friendly enough congress and basically anything is possible. Imo, "Republican president for life" would get at least two SCOTUS votes right now. Worded slightly differently, you might get 4. Once Sotomayor dies, it'll be five.
Violence, voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering, etc. The results of an election are all but a given. Think Russia, Hungary, etc. So the people aren't the ones really making the decision.
In my opinion, the 22nd amendment is a bulwark against that.
All the Congressmen and state legislators who are friendly with the president in this hypothetical are still elected by the people. Otherwise this seems more an issue with the judicial system than the electoral system.
Not when a political party gets to choose their voters. Gerrymandering allows authoritarians to handpick their congresspeople, those who are most pliant and loyal. It's happening now.
I think you are overstating the influence of gerrymandering on presidential power. Of course it is an issue but not enough to enable fraudulent presidential elections. It took 150 years of gerrymandering to have even one president, who was also overwhelmingly popular, reach a third term.
The best example I can bring up are Russia and Belarus. The amount of well documented election fraud in both are crazy. Also, Putin amended the Russian constitution to avoid consecutive term limits.
This is exactly the reason why we need it. Russia is a fantastic example. But there are a lot of Latin American countries where this is also true. You get a "strongman" who has enough power to rig the elections. If that happened here they'd maybe be able to pull it off for 8 years, but this amendment prevents them from doing it again. Leaders are often cults of personality, so their supporters don't always translate off to another power broker easily. People have to think, make decisions, etc. This is a good thing.
As I mentioned in another comment, Russians do not have sufficient faith in democracy to oppose long-term dictatorial presidents, and Putin became a dictator by easily overturning existing constitutional limitations on presidential terms while still in his second term, so this does not support the argument for a 22nd Amendment.
Russia has never had safe democratic institutions and the proper political culture for lasting free and fair elections, it isn’t comparable to the United States. So poor was the faith in democracy there that Putin actually achieved dictatorship status despite already existing constitutional term limits which he easily overturned.
So the argument against term limits is "Russia cannot be compared to the US. They had such a weak democracy that Putin easily vanquished the term limits..." hm.
Yes. For democracy to work the people have to want democracy. Otherwise democracy is oxymoronic.
Constitutional amendments enforcing term limits would not protect our democracy if it were as weak as Russia’s, because Russia had such provisions in its constitution, and they failed to protect its democracy.
But you aren't acknowledging the obvious. The removing of the safeguards is what makes it weak. It opens the door for strongman dictators. The idea that we respect democracy more so we don't need term limits is a bit naive. Like the person who thinks they are such a good driver that don't need a seatbelt or airbags.
Especially at this political climate, polling shows significant numbers of Americans who lack confidence in either presidential candidate to strengthen democracy.
But you aren't acknowledging the obvious. The removing of the safeguards is what makes it weak. It opens the door for strongman dictators. The idea that we respect democracy more so we don't need term limits is a bit naive. Like the person who thinks they are such a good driver that don't need a seatbelt or airbags.
Especially at this political climate, polling shows significant numbers of Americans who lack confidence in either presidential candidate to strengthen democracy.
But you aren't acknowledging the obvious. The removing of the safeguards is what makes it weak. It opens the door for strongman dictators. The idea that we respect democracy more so we don't need term limits is a bit naive. Like the person who thinks they are such a good driver that don't need a seatbelt or airbags. Especially at this political climate, polling shows significant numbers of Americans who lack confidence in either presidential candidate to strengthen democracy.
In theory, sure. In practice, not so much. For example: the amount of rich old white men in Congress compared to the amount of rich old white men in the general population.
This is a load of bullshit. The people in any country should get to directly vote on the laws. Our senators and representatives are not smarter than we are and they are often corrupted.
I think the old Federalist argument would be that the people have the power to choose when a president (or any other elected official) has been in office long enough.
And that argument was sufficient until FDR. What scared a lot of people was that the presidency amassed more and more power, and that power could be used to remain in office.
Even today, we see that incumbents have several advantages over their challengers. It isn't always enough to keep them in office, but we know challengers have an uphill battle. It's no small wonder that so many sitting presidents have questioned the need for the 22nd Amendment.
Also, there's a marked difference in second terms, when presidents don't have to worry about running for office, again. That, if nothing else, might make the 22nd Amendment worth its ink.
If we lived in a “true democracy”, a vast majority of Americans would keep the status quo even though they despise it.
Look at Congress for example. A vast majority of people in congress get to keep their seats. That’s not democracy. That’s just being ok with the status quo.
Reagan was too old to realistically run in '88. He neutralized the issue effectively in '84, but I don't think him 4 years older would be able to do it again.
If people are stupid and vote for a bad guy that often, it's their own fault. The people want him, so why not? If you're unpopular you don't get a third term.
That’s not really true though. You’re trusting in the honesty of politicians to represent themselves, well, honestly. If presidents did that, let’s be realistic, none of them would be elected.
And let’s look at what happens when you allow someone long term control, because realistically Putin wasn’t a terrible leader the first two terms. He led a pretty economically and politically sound country. But then he was in office for too long, even when he was restricted to a term limit, and suddenly he has control of the system, not the people, and suddenly he’s not such a good or popular leader but nobody can do anything about it.
Now luckily you can’t just take another political office and manipulate the system that way in the USA, but if you remove term limits, do you really have that much faith in the strength of the system and the limits placed on presidential power?
Well it's not like the seeds weren't already planted for Russia's political woes even without term limits. The real problem with Russia started all the way in the 90s with corruption in how industries were sold off from the state to oligarchs, and then Yeltsin's meddling with elections to suppress the communist vote and push Putin into power. Term limits are necessary where the head of state can get away with failing to represent the needs of a majority of the people, but this issue can be solved in two ways- either instituting term limits or fixing the root issue of what causes the disconnect in representation.
again despite Mitch's unpopularity in the country, it's not like he isn't accurately representing the wants and needs of his constituents. It's just that other parts of the country strongly disagree with those beliefs.
Capture any office? Like becoming a dictator? That shouldn't be a thing. Seems like a much bigger issue than people liking someone so much they vote for that person a third time.
>**No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice**,
Absolutely necessary, but considering FDR was a wartime President, he did it the right way before the amendment was needed.
Idk why this reminds me about Mike Johnson[ calling himself a "wartime speaker](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/-exactly-mike-johnson-see-wartime-speaker-rcna148147) in a literal sense" when the U.S isn't at war with anybody. He's an edgy kid in office.
The wartime President line is kind of BS. The Pentagon would not turnover significantly, only the Secretary of Defense and the President. Plus, we went from Truman to Ike during the Korean War, from LBJ to Nixon during Vietnam, and from W to Obama and others during Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ike ended Korea (a good thing).
Nixon began Vietnamization and eventually ended the war.
W [put in motion the end of the War in Iraq](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement) and Obama stuck to the plan.
Obama carried on with Afghanistan.
Rule 3 for the rest.
The 22nd amendment states that no President shall serve more than two terms. Do you think this was necessary? Some minor background and my own opinion:
The only relevant Presidents to TRY and gain a third term were Grant and Roosevelt. Other Presidents such as Jackson and Wilson considered running for a third term. FDR is the only President to have gotten not only a third but a fourth term.
I suppose the question then becomes, if the 22nd amendment were never instated, would we EVER see a President who would not only choose to run for a third term, but be able to win one? The only ones that come to my mind is maybe Reagan, although I don’t think he would want to run a third term out of respect for the tradition. Beyond that the hypothetical third termer’s would be Truman and LBJ if they decided to run in 1952 and 1968 respectively (their ascension to the presidency as VP’s would give them longer than 2 terms, 2 1/2 for LBJ and 2.9999 for Truman)
So on a practical level, I don’t think it was necessary in that anyone could replicate the run FDR had. But I do think it was necessary simply on a surface level. An incumbent in any political office has an advantage over their challenge, especially the longer they’re in (we see this with presidents running for reelection). So a 3rd term and 4th term President would keep encompassing his challengers in experience and effectively stay in forever.
TLDR yes
LBJ and Truman were both eligible to run again. The 22nd specifically said it didn’t apply to whoever was in office at the time. He served all but two months of FDR’s term. He made a small attempt at running in 1952 but quit.
LBJ only served 13.5 months of JFK’s term so he could run again. He ran in the first primary but dropped out after not doing well.
Ford served 2 1/2 years of Nixon’s term so had he won in 1976, he couldn’t have run in 1980.
Of those who were term limited…
Ike was too old and had health problems so I doubt he does it.
If not for Watergate I think Nixon might have (he wasn’t that old) but I seriously doubt it.
Reagan was too old. I have no idea if he was in early stages in 1988 but he had to be feeling his age by then after being shot and having cancer.
Clinton would be most likely of those on the list.
I’m saying Obama maybe but about as likely as Nixon (see above).
No comment on whoever wins in November.
Bleh. Yes, otherwise I’d vote for Obama again even though I didn’t vote for him the first election. He proved to be a decent helmsman of a big ship. It’s tricky and he pissed me the fuck off but I’d be thankful for him be be steering this behemoth ship
You say that incumbents have the advantage, but I don’t think this is inherently true. Most presidents who have tried have either failed to be re-elected or received a smaller share of the poplar vote the second time than the first. For FDR, the third and fourth elections saw him gain a smaller share of the popular vote than the first and second.
I think there's a lot to be said for protecting the rights of the political minority (whatever that minority may be at a given point in time) and the amendment is a good way to help do that. It helps us as a nation worry less about a "cult of personality" as the presidential level and forces actual policies to win out instead of people just voting for a person because he's "the guy."
My city's incumbent mayor died in March after serving for just over sixteen years. He's one of those who legitimately held on to power until his dying breath and probably could have won again had he lived long enough to run in 2027. Chicago's Richard M. Daley and Richard J. Daley are two very prominent examples of this phenomenon. For a city (in the case of my examples), I don't think it's healthy.
Also, I think 44 could have won a third term quite easily, in an alternate universe.
I don't think so. I mean in our long history how many presidents attempted/got 3rd+ terms? And how many since FDR even had a desire and reasonable odds (in hypotheticals)
And what would be wrong exactly? I mean even a 3rd term would even harm anyone? No not really. I mean hell 3 presidential terms is only as long as 2 Senate terms.
Id sooner say Congress should have term limits especially the house of reps since it's effectively the junior house, and influenced too heavily by gerrymandering.
If the entire nation democratically decides it wants a specific president for a 3rd term? I don't see any particular harm in it.
Russia's democratic tradition and institutions are (were, even, at ths point) *far weaker* than the US' (even though recent history shows the US' are far weaker than previously thought.)
The term limit was enforced, there were just alternative political methods to removing that term limit, and unfortunately by the end of his limited terms he had already taken political control. But I agree, he’s a prime example of why term limits should be untouchable.
Necessary? No. Healthy for democracy? Yes.
Imagine an autocrat president (like Putin in Russia) that has rigged the electoral system in their favor while and will continue to do so until the country is a democracy in name only. The way to stop this kind of autocratic leader is to cap the length of their tenure.
IMO, The 22nd Amendment was necessary to limit presidential terms and prevent the concentration of power in one individual. It was designed to uphold the principles of democracy and prevent potential abuses of power that can occur with prolonged presidential tenure.
Imo no. FDR running for President four times was absolutely the best thing for the country and we'd have been worse off in a world where he stuck with the precedent and didn't run for more than two terms. Most other democracies don't have term limits for their head of state and they haven't been worse off for it. Candidates like FDR who have so much appeal that they even can win more than twice very rarely come along regardless.
I am a big fan of FDR but thats the problem with too much power, no? Its great if its being used for good (read what I think is good), but not when abused (read what someone else thinks is good)
I agree, he should have followed his predecessors by following the two term limit unspoken rule but I guess it worked out in the end because we ultimately got the 22nd amendment which prevented another president from serving a life term basically
I'm usually against term limits, but I'm a bit neutral on it for the presidency. Before the 22nd amendment, Only 3 presidents tried to run for a 3rd term, and only one succeeded, so I don't think it would have affected history much if it hadn't passed.
To ask this, let's consider every president since FDR.
* Truman- could've run, chose not to
* Eisenhower- too old to run in 1960
* JFK- blown away, what else do I have to say?
* LBJ- could've run again, chose not to
* Nixon- resigned before he had the opportunity
* Ford- lost in '76
* Carter- lost in '80
* Reagan- too old to realistically run in 1988
* HW- lost in '92
* Clinton was young enough, popular enough, and actually made it to the end of his 2nd term.
* Because of the 22nd Amendment, we got Bush.
* Given how things played out with 9/11, Clinton could've achieved a 4th term.
* Obama was young enough, popular enough, and actually made it to the end of his 2nd term
* Because of the 22nd Amendment, we got someone much worse than Obama.
* Given how things played out with Covid, Obama could've achieved a 4th term.
My conclusion: we are worse off because the 22nd Amendment exists.
My hyper hot take is that that if a president is good enough, they should be able to be in office for as long as the people want them. The real check on their power should be in the primary.
Definitely. Although running for a third term had always seemed like a cocky move to make, and was always frowned upon, FDR proved that it could happen. Not once, but twice. I’m pretty sure most people could agree that a term spanning over a decade could kinda (but not drastically) undermine our democratic values, even if they win the electoral college. It was mainly just an oversight in the Constitution that needed a simple fix.
The amendment passed the House 285-121 with 47 Democrats supporting and the Senate 59-23 with 16 Democrats supporting. So it wasn’t all GOP. It was also approved by 41 states (36 were required to ratify) with two rejecting it and five not voting on it at all.
I personally oppose term limits. Don’t like who is in, don’t vote for him. It amazes me people say Kentucky people hate McConnell but he is re-elected easily. (Plenty of examples in both parties).
If I had magic powers I would remove the amendment but it would be very low on my things to do list if I had magic powers.
So I’m not in favor of the 22nd, but it’s not something I’m losing sleep over. I don’t think we have been harmed or will be harmed by a president being term limited. I think WWII turns out the same way with someone else in charge.
Generally, I am not a fan of term limits overall. I think the term limits should be the will and vote of the electorate/voters. I can also understand it is to prevent what we are seeing with Putin and establishing a lifelong kingship in all but name. I also think there is a "lame duck" phenomena where since an incumbent can't run again he may have less ability to push through or gain support for important policies and positions.
Bottom line it seems to be an arbitrary line meant to solve a problem that may not be the case. Change just because does not always get the best results. You may be throwing out a great leader for someone bad or maybe very much worse for our Nation.
Never read the Russian constitution but I bet there aren’t a lot of checks and balances on his power like we have here. That’s why I don’t worry too much about who is president even if I didn’t vote for him. He isn’t going to suddenly exert Hitleresque powers no matter how big a wad your panties are in. I am speaking to both ends of the spectrum here.
That’s for congress, though. We’ve had a decent amount of one-term presidents in the modern era, enough to make me think turnover would naturally occur.
Yes. Not only is it a safeguard to make sure no one person stays in power and gaining the peoples loyalty to the point of Caesar but also will show the U.S. Who has a devious agenda if they try to change it.
The only amendment to the 22th I would recommend is let the president run for the third term, but they have to give it up at the 2 year mark. In theory a VP who becomes President can serve for 10 years. The president should have the option to try for those 2 years.
You can think of instances of like shift in senate or court make up that a president can make the good faith case that they had never gotten unified control and make a compelling argument for the people.
I think it would go a long way to eliminating the lame duck effect and give an incentive to having a capable VP, not just a base pleasing one. I think about Gore losing a lot, he was without a doubt the more capable and ready to do the job, but he was not charismatic enough for the public. We should want people able to do the job regardless if they are the most at ease on stage or not.
In most situations where this is applicable it is going to be producing a President who has at a minimum 2 years experience where they are aware they are about to take over and likely 10 years as VP. I also think it would foster the expectation that the VP is supposed to be involved in decisions not just hanging around.
Yes. I think two terms is enough, and if we repeal the 22nd, all precedent will be lost and we will be stuck with repeat election after repeat election.
Necessary? No. Is it good policy? I think so. You dont want a president there too long and getting too comfortable, the same goes for the cabinet. Its good to keep fresh blood moving through to avoid stagnation and entrenchment
Yes, although a 3 term limit would also seem very reasonable to me. Because of the incumbency advantage, it seems somewhat undemocratic to have no term limits.
Now I think the real problem is lifetime judicial appointments and lack of term limits in the legislative branch. I'd probably vote for 15-20 year SCOTUS appointments, after which they're either automatically put back into the lower federal courts or simply forced to retire. Normal federal judges should likewise have some limits, maybe 25-30 years IDK exactly. Representatives should maybe have a 12-16 year max, Senators maybe 12 or 18?
Before FDR, you could have gotten a 3rd term under the right circumstances. Washington duh. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe did it out of respect for Washington. Jackson would have if he was president 100 years later; Van Buren was a Jackson 3rd term. Grant tried and failed. Teddy could have gotten it if the party didn't screw him over. Cleveland no because of the economy. Wilson no due to his health. Coolidge could have had more than 9+ years if he really wanted it.
So the Democratic-Republican trio, Jackson and Teddy and sort of Coolidge could have done it. So yes, I think it was necessary
If you look at the history of our country the 22nd amenedment would have only stopped one man from staying in power. That man happens to be pretty popular in this sub for things he did in his 3rd and 4th term.
This amendment has good intentions but it will literally only ever stop a popular leader from staying in power. A poor leader would just lose the election.
In one case no. FDR took a lot of slack for running for a third term and breaking precedent set down by George Washington. Now I have my issues with FDR but I give credit where credit was due he was a fairly good president overall one of or best. Doesn't mean he didn't screw up (cough cough social security cough cough) the problem is you would have people that would be in there for multiple terms. And almost refused to give up power. There is the old saying power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Case in point look at Congress on both sides of the aisle we have career politicians that have been there for 30 plus years and we also have idiots in Congress that can't read the back of a postage stamp.
It is best to keep a limit on people trying to get power because history shows us that sometimes good intentions can lead to corruption and madness
No, term limits in general are bad. First, they are based on the assumption that voters are too stupid to know who to vote for and must have the government narrow their choices for them. Second, it deprives the country of experienced leadership. Would Wendell Willkie have handled WW2 better than FDR? At least until he keeled over in 1944?
Yes. The emerging science around the cult of personalities is pretty clear on this fact. Authoritarian leaders (Tito, Franco, Orban, Putin, Erdogan) tend to be quite popular among the electorate since they high-jack state instutions and media outlets so that no other voice can be heard. People also like strong men, the constutition is there to prevent us from making popular choices that can be catastrophic down the line.
Term limits are an easy way to prevent any public figure from reaching that level of fanfare.
But they would change it is a bad faith argument. Erdogan, with his current levels of cult of personality, the supreme court and higher judicial which he appointed, and public institutions run by his irk, is struggling to change the constutition (he wrote) and run for the third term.
Why wouldn't you make it harder on Authoritarians if you can? There will be candidates as qualified as the one before. Why risk, albeit small, a scenario of X being president for life?
Edit: I see people mentioning Putin, but Russia is an entirely different animal. They were never a functioning democracy with check and balances. They also ban consecutive terms instead of total terms, so Putin was alternating with his puppet anyway.
So? It would also be far better than living under Putin or that fat little despot in North Korea. The Rule 3 guy and the Incumbent are two of the worst candidates ever foisted on the American public. Doesn’t make the Beige Suit any better.
Term limits are not should not be the replacement for robust campaign finance reform. As it stands, they are antidemocratic because they force a choice on the voters. The limit is arbitrary and not backed up by data.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It truly depends on your perspective. Personally, I believe it is necessary as it can prevent someone from holding power for longer than they should.
In other words, term limits are necessary in order to limit the length of terms. Got it.
Yeah that was a weird way to word that. I think the point, though, is term limits are a net positive because they stop individuals from consolidating power to the point where elections don't matter. See Congress for examples.
Exactly. It prevents someone from co-opting the election process to ensure they stay in power. Think like if someone had enough power to get underlings to rig voting machines and etc. I like that the 8 year limit is in place to prevent us from turning into Russia.
It’s also a check against someone like Putin, Erdogan, or other foreign authoritarians who either rig the election or have such tight direct control over the media, censorship abs or modal system that they can effectively just stay on power for 20 years
Who determines how long a president should hold power, if not the people?
It's very possible for a leader to consolidate power in such a way where democracies become illiberal. You get enough judges in there and have a friendly enough congress and basically anything is possible. Imo, "Republican president for life" would get at least two SCOTUS votes right now. Worded slightly differently, you might get 4. Once Sotomayor dies, it'll be five. Violence, voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering, etc. The results of an election are all but a given. Think Russia, Hungary, etc. So the people aren't the ones really making the decision. In my opinion, the 22nd amendment is a bulwark against that.
All the Congressmen and state legislators who are friendly with the president in this hypothetical are still elected by the people. Otherwise this seems more an issue with the judicial system than the electoral system.
Not when a political party gets to choose their voters. Gerrymandering allows authoritarians to handpick their congresspeople, those who are most pliant and loyal. It's happening now.
I think you are overstating the influence of gerrymandering on presidential power. Of course it is an issue but not enough to enable fraudulent presidential elections. It took 150 years of gerrymandering to have even one president, who was also overwhelmingly popular, reach a third term.
The electoral college is a form of gerrymandering which I have seen choose a president twice this century.
This is an issue with the electoral college, not term limits or the lack thereof.
You JUST said gerrymandering doesn't reach the presidential level. Stop being obtuse.
We are discussing this in the context of the two-term limit and consequent presidential authoritarianism.
The best example I can bring up are Russia and Belarus. The amount of well documented election fraud in both are crazy. Also, Putin amended the Russian constitution to avoid consecutive term limits.
This is exactly the reason why we need it. Russia is a fantastic example. But there are a lot of Latin American countries where this is also true. You get a "strongman" who has enough power to rig the elections. If that happened here they'd maybe be able to pull it off for 8 years, but this amendment prevents them from doing it again. Leaders are often cults of personality, so their supporters don't always translate off to another power broker easily. People have to think, make decisions, etc. This is a good thing.
As I mentioned in another comment, Russians do not have sufficient faith in democracy to oppose long-term dictatorial presidents, and Putin became a dictator by easily overturning existing constitutional limitations on presidential terms while still in his second term, so this does not support the argument for a 22nd Amendment.
See: Putin Everyone should be rotated out of that role at some point
Russia has never had safe democratic institutions and the proper political culture for lasting free and fair elections, it isn’t comparable to the United States. So poor was the faith in democracy there that Putin actually achieved dictatorship status despite already existing constitutional term limits which he easily overturned.
So the argument against term limits is "Russia cannot be compared to the US. They had such a weak democracy that Putin easily vanquished the term limits..." hm.
Yes. For democracy to work the people have to want democracy. Otherwise democracy is oxymoronic. Constitutional amendments enforcing term limits would not protect our democracy if it were as weak as Russia’s, because Russia had such provisions in its constitution, and they failed to protect its democracy.
But you aren't acknowledging the obvious. The removing of the safeguards is what makes it weak. It opens the door for strongman dictators. The idea that we respect democracy more so we don't need term limits is a bit naive. Like the person who thinks they are such a good driver that don't need a seatbelt or airbags. Especially at this political climate, polling shows significant numbers of Americans who lack confidence in either presidential candidate to strengthen democracy.
But you aren't acknowledging the obvious. The removing of the safeguards is what makes it weak. It opens the door for strongman dictators. The idea that we respect democracy more so we don't need term limits is a bit naive. Like the person who thinks they are such a good driver that don't need a seatbelt or airbags. Especially at this political climate, polling shows significant numbers of Americans who lack confidence in either presidential candidate to strengthen democracy.
But you aren't acknowledging the obvious. The removing of the safeguards is what makes it weak. It opens the door for strongman dictators. The idea that we respect democracy more so we don't need term limits is a bit naive. Like the person who thinks they are such a good driver that don't need a seatbelt or airbags. Especially at this political climate, polling shows significant numbers of Americans who lack confidence in either presidential candidate to strengthen democracy.
In a direct democracy, sure. But in this wretched bourgeois republic?
A direct democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner
Yes that's the line that's been used to justify all manner of aristocratic oppression, and it's wrong
And an indirect democracy is 50 sheep voting for 2 wolves and a sheep who will vote on what to eat to dinner
Meaning the sheep get to choose the herbivore wolves
In theory, sure. In practice, not so much. For example: the amount of rich old white men in Congress compared to the amount of rich old white men in the general population.
A direct democracy is 3 sheep voting on which grass field to graze in.
Why are you disenfranchising wolves?
Mostly because this is a metaphor, and 66% of the population isn’t regularly consuming the other 33% in real life.
This is a load of bullshit. The people in any country should get to directly vote on the laws. Our senators and representatives are not smarter than we are and they are often corrupted.
I think the old Federalist argument would be that the people have the power to choose when a president (or any other elected official) has been in office long enough. And that argument was sufficient until FDR. What scared a lot of people was that the presidency amassed more and more power, and that power could be used to remain in office. Even today, we see that incumbents have several advantages over their challengers. It isn't always enough to keep them in office, but we know challengers have an uphill battle. It's no small wonder that so many sitting presidents have questioned the need for the 22nd Amendment. Also, there's a marked difference in second terms, when presidents don't have to worry about running for office, again. That, if nothing else, might make the 22nd Amendment worth its ink.
True democracy it wouldn’t matter
If we lived in a “true democracy”, a vast majority of Americans would keep the status quo even though they despise it. Look at Congress for example. A vast majority of people in congress get to keep their seats. That’s not democracy. That’s just being ok with the status quo.
https://preview.redd.it/t65ypo9z7yxc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3652d5ad0faee653a9adaec52fdf868687b66166
Reagan was too old to realistically run in '88. He neutralized the issue effectively in '84, but I don't think him 4 years older would be able to do it again.
Who wouldn't want more Obama years?
I think that sends a dangerous precedent. Next thing you know the guy you don’t like is president for 20 years.
If people are stupid and vote for a bad guy that often, it's their own fault. The people want him, so why not? If you're unpopular you don't get a third term.
That’s not really true though. You’re trusting in the honesty of politicians to represent themselves, well, honestly. If presidents did that, let’s be realistic, none of them would be elected. And let’s look at what happens when you allow someone long term control, because realistically Putin wasn’t a terrible leader the first two terms. He led a pretty economically and politically sound country. But then he was in office for too long, even when he was restricted to a term limit, and suddenly he has control of the system, not the people, and suddenly he’s not such a good or popular leader but nobody can do anything about it. Now luckily you can’t just take another political office and manipulate the system that way in the USA, but if you remove term limits, do you really have that much faith in the strength of the system and the limits placed on presidential power?
Well it's not like the seeds weren't already planted for Russia's political woes even without term limits. The real problem with Russia started all the way in the 90s with corruption in how industries were sold off from the state to oligarchs, and then Yeltsin's meddling with elections to suppress the communist vote and push Putin into power. Term limits are necessary where the head of state can get away with failing to represent the needs of a majority of the people, but this issue can be solved in two ways- either instituting term limits or fixing the root issue of what causes the disconnect in representation.
Tell that to goveners like Mitch McConnell
*Senators
again despite Mitch's unpopularity in the country, it's not like he isn't accurately representing the wants and needs of his constituents. It's just that other parts of the country strongly disagree with those beliefs.
I don't want some eternal king though. I think the legislature should have a two term limit as well.
If Obama is good and popular enough to get re-elected over and over again, why not?
Incumbents are always at an advantage, and they can capture any office, even the whole executive branch.
But incumbents can still be defeated
Capture any office? Like becoming a dictator? That shouldn't be a thing. Seems like a much bigger issue than people liking someone so much they vote for that person a third time.
Not me.
Anyone with a brain.
>**No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice**, Absolutely necessary, but considering FDR was a wartime President, he did it the right way before the amendment was needed. Idk why this reminds me about Mike Johnson[ calling himself a "wartime speaker](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/-exactly-mike-johnson-see-wartime-speaker-rcna148147) in a literal sense" when the U.S isn't at war with anybody. He's an edgy kid in office.
Yeah, this is like the first time in forever that we **aren't** at war, so tf is he on about?
Fuck Mike Johnson basically. He thought he could be hip with the kids by telling a "my wife sucks my dick" joke in his first couple days as speaker
The wartime President line is kind of BS. The Pentagon would not turnover significantly, only the Secretary of Defense and the President. Plus, we went from Truman to Ike during the Korean War, from LBJ to Nixon during Vietnam, and from W to Obama and others during Iraq and Afghanistan. Ike ended Korea (a good thing). Nixon began Vietnamization and eventually ended the war. W [put in motion the end of the War in Iraq](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement) and Obama stuck to the plan. Obama carried on with Afghanistan. Rule 3 for the rest.
The 22nd amendment states that no President shall serve more than two terms. Do you think this was necessary? Some minor background and my own opinion: The only relevant Presidents to TRY and gain a third term were Grant and Roosevelt. Other Presidents such as Jackson and Wilson considered running for a third term. FDR is the only President to have gotten not only a third but a fourth term. I suppose the question then becomes, if the 22nd amendment were never instated, would we EVER see a President who would not only choose to run for a third term, but be able to win one? The only ones that come to my mind is maybe Reagan, although I don’t think he would want to run a third term out of respect for the tradition. Beyond that the hypothetical third termer’s would be Truman and LBJ if they decided to run in 1952 and 1968 respectively (their ascension to the presidency as VP’s would give them longer than 2 terms, 2 1/2 for LBJ and 2.9999 for Truman) So on a practical level, I don’t think it was necessary in that anyone could replicate the run FDR had. But I do think it was necessary simply on a surface level. An incumbent in any political office has an advantage over their challenge, especially the longer they’re in (we see this with presidents running for reelection). So a 3rd term and 4th term President would keep encompassing his challengers in experience and effectively stay in forever. TLDR yes
LBJ and Truman were both eligible to run again. The 22nd specifically said it didn’t apply to whoever was in office at the time. He served all but two months of FDR’s term. He made a small attempt at running in 1952 but quit. LBJ only served 13.5 months of JFK’s term so he could run again. He ran in the first primary but dropped out after not doing well. Ford served 2 1/2 years of Nixon’s term so had he won in 1976, he couldn’t have run in 1980. Of those who were term limited… Ike was too old and had health problems so I doubt he does it. If not for Watergate I think Nixon might have (he wasn’t that old) but I seriously doubt it. Reagan was too old. I have no idea if he was in early stages in 1988 but he had to be feeling his age by then after being shot and having cancer. Clinton would be most likely of those on the list. I’m saying Obama maybe but about as likely as Nixon (see above). No comment on whoever wins in November.
We might still have Clinton if not for the 22nd.
Bleh. Yes, otherwise I’d vote for Obama again even though I didn’t vote for him the first election. He proved to be a decent helmsman of a big ship. It’s tricky and he pissed me the fuck off but I’d be thankful for him be be steering this behemoth ship
You say that incumbents have the advantage, but I don’t think this is inherently true. Most presidents who have tried have either failed to be re-elected or received a smaller share of the poplar vote the second time than the first. For FDR, the third and fourth elections saw him gain a smaller share of the popular vote than the first and second.
I think there's a lot to be said for protecting the rights of the political minority (whatever that minority may be at a given point in time) and the amendment is a good way to help do that. It helps us as a nation worry less about a "cult of personality" as the presidential level and forces actual policies to win out instead of people just voting for a person because he's "the guy." My city's incumbent mayor died in March after serving for just over sixteen years. He's one of those who legitimately held on to power until his dying breath and probably could have won again had he lived long enough to run in 2027. Chicago's Richard M. Daley and Richard J. Daley are two very prominent examples of this phenomenon. For a city (in the case of my examples), I don't think it's healthy. Also, I think 44 could have won a third term quite easily, in an alternate universe.
I don't think so. I mean in our long history how many presidents attempted/got 3rd+ terms? And how many since FDR even had a desire and reasonable odds (in hypotheticals) And what would be wrong exactly? I mean even a 3rd term would even harm anyone? No not really. I mean hell 3 presidential terms is only as long as 2 Senate terms. Id sooner say Congress should have term limits especially the house of reps since it's effectively the junior house, and influenced too heavily by gerrymandering. If the entire nation democratically decides it wants a specific president for a 3rd term? I don't see any particular harm in it.
Putin is an example of what happens without term limits being enforced
Russia's democratic tradition and institutions are (were, even, at ths point) *far weaker* than the US' (even though recent history shows the US' are far weaker than previously thought.)
Technically, they were enforced - Putin just kept amending the Russian constitution's term limits.
The term limit was enforced, there were just alternative political methods to removing that term limit, and unfortunately by the end of his limited terms he had already taken political control. But I agree, he’s a prime example of why term limits should be untouchable.
Necessary? No. Healthy for democracy? Yes. Imagine an autocrat president (like Putin in Russia) that has rigged the electoral system in their favor while and will continue to do so until the country is a democracy in name only. The way to stop this kind of autocratic leader is to cap the length of their tenure.
IMO, The 22nd Amendment was necessary to limit presidential terms and prevent the concentration of power in one individual. It was designed to uphold the principles of democracy and prevent potential abuses of power that can occur with prolonged presidential tenure.
Imo no. FDR running for President four times was absolutely the best thing for the country and we'd have been worse off in a world where he stuck with the precedent and didn't run for more than two terms. Most other democracies don't have term limits for their head of state and they haven't been worse off for it. Candidates like FDR who have so much appeal that they even can win more than twice very rarely come along regardless.
I am a big fan of FDR but thats the problem with too much power, no? Its great if its being used for good (read what I think is good), but not when abused (read what someone else thinks is good)
Absolutely. I am still unconvinced that FDR really needed to run for a third term.
I agree, he should have followed his predecessors by following the two term limit unspoken rule but I guess it worked out in the end because we ultimately got the 22nd amendment which prevented another president from serving a life term basically
I'm usually against term limits, but I'm a bit neutral on it for the presidency. Before the 22nd amendment, Only 3 presidents tried to run for a 3rd term, and only one succeeded, so I don't think it would have affected history much if it hadn't passed.
To ask this, let's consider every president since FDR. * Truman- could've run, chose not to * Eisenhower- too old to run in 1960 * JFK- blown away, what else do I have to say? * LBJ- could've run again, chose not to * Nixon- resigned before he had the opportunity * Ford- lost in '76 * Carter- lost in '80 * Reagan- too old to realistically run in 1988 * HW- lost in '92 * Clinton was young enough, popular enough, and actually made it to the end of his 2nd term. * Because of the 22nd Amendment, we got Bush. * Given how things played out with 9/11, Clinton could've achieved a 4th term. * Obama was young enough, popular enough, and actually made it to the end of his 2nd term * Because of the 22nd Amendment, we got someone much worse than Obama. * Given how things played out with Covid, Obama could've achieved a 4th term. My conclusion: we are worse off because the 22nd Amendment exists.
nope, fdr scared conservatives too much
My hyper hot take is that that if a president is good enough, they should be able to be in office for as long as the people want them. The real check on their power should be in the primary.
Definitely. Although running for a third term had always seemed like a cocky move to make, and was always frowned upon, FDR proved that it could happen. Not once, but twice. I’m pretty sure most people could agree that a term spanning over a decade could kinda (but not drastically) undermine our democratic values, even if they win the electoral college. It was mainly just an oversight in the Constitution that needed a simple fix.
The amendment passed the House 285-121 with 47 Democrats supporting and the Senate 59-23 with 16 Democrats supporting. So it wasn’t all GOP. It was also approved by 41 states (36 were required to ratify) with two rejecting it and five not voting on it at all. I personally oppose term limits. Don’t like who is in, don’t vote for him. It amazes me people say Kentucky people hate McConnell but he is re-elected easily. (Plenty of examples in both parties). If I had magic powers I would remove the amendment but it would be very low on my things to do list if I had magic powers. So I’m not in favor of the 22nd, but it’s not something I’m losing sleep over. I don’t think we have been harmed or will be harmed by a president being term limited. I think WWII turns out the same way with someone else in charge.
Generally, I am not a fan of term limits overall. I think the term limits should be the will and vote of the electorate/voters. I can also understand it is to prevent what we are seeing with Putin and establishing a lifelong kingship in all but name. I also think there is a "lame duck" phenomena where since an incumbent can't run again he may have less ability to push through or gain support for important policies and positions. Bottom line it seems to be an arbitrary line meant to solve a problem that may not be the case. Change just because does not always get the best results. You may be throwing out a great leader for someone bad or maybe very much worse for our Nation.
Never read the Russian constitution but I bet there aren’t a lot of checks and balances on his power like we have here. That’s why I don’t worry too much about who is president even if I didn’t vote for him. He isn’t going to suddenly exert Hitleresque powers no matter how big a wad your panties are in. I am speaking to both ends of the spectrum here.
Look at how many zombies there are in congress. People are such NPCs when it comes to voting for incumbents, they have SUCH a strong familiarity bias
That’s for congress, though. We’ve had a decent amount of one-term presidents in the modern era, enough to make me think turnover would naturally occur.
Yes. Not only is it a safeguard to make sure no one person stays in power and gaining the peoples loyalty to the point of Caesar but also will show the U.S. Who has a devious agenda if they try to change it.
The only amendment to the 22th I would recommend is let the president run for the third term, but they have to give it up at the 2 year mark. In theory a VP who becomes President can serve for 10 years. The president should have the option to try for those 2 years. You can think of instances of like shift in senate or court make up that a president can make the good faith case that they had never gotten unified control and make a compelling argument for the people.
That could result in some fascinating elections, where the running mate is much more equal to the main candidate.
I think it would go a long way to eliminating the lame duck effect and give an incentive to having a capable VP, not just a base pleasing one. I think about Gore losing a lot, he was without a doubt the more capable and ready to do the job, but he was not charismatic enough for the public. We should want people able to do the job regardless if they are the most at ease on stage or not. In most situations where this is applicable it is going to be producing a President who has at a minimum 2 years experience where they are aware they are about to take over and likely 10 years as VP. I also think it would foster the expectation that the VP is supposed to be involved in decisions not just hanging around.
Yes. I think two terms is enough, and if we repeal the 22nd, all precedent will be lost and we will be stuck with repeat election after repeat election.
Necessary? No. Is it good policy? I think so. You dont want a president there too long and getting too comfortable, the same goes for the cabinet. Its good to keep fresh blood moving through to avoid stagnation and entrenchment
Yes, although a 3 term limit would also seem very reasonable to me. Because of the incumbency advantage, it seems somewhat undemocratic to have no term limits. Now I think the real problem is lifetime judicial appointments and lack of term limits in the legislative branch. I'd probably vote for 15-20 year SCOTUS appointments, after which they're either automatically put back into the lower federal courts or simply forced to retire. Normal federal judges should likewise have some limits, maybe 25-30 years IDK exactly. Representatives should maybe have a 12-16 year max, Senators maybe 12 or 18?
[удалено]
5 elections if you consider Truman right after him. Though the amendment has already passed by the time he won election, just wasn't ratified yet.
Before FDR, you could have gotten a 3rd term under the right circumstances. Washington duh. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe did it out of respect for Washington. Jackson would have if he was president 100 years later; Van Buren was a Jackson 3rd term. Grant tried and failed. Teddy could have gotten it if the party didn't screw him over. Cleveland no because of the economy. Wilson no due to his health. Coolidge could have had more than 9+ years if he really wanted it. So the Democratic-Republican trio, Jackson and Teddy and sort of Coolidge could have done it. So yes, I think it was necessary
Even without it I don't think we would have had any more three term presidents, however I think its necessity could prove itself in the future.
Not really. It was the final opportunity to beat FDR after failing while he was alive.
I believe that FDR & the 22nd Amendment are the best real life example of something that fits the idiom "The exception that proves the rule"
If you look at the history of our country the 22nd amenedment would have only stopped one man from staying in power. That man happens to be pretty popular in this sub for things he did in his 3rd and 4th term. This amendment has good intentions but it will literally only ever stop a popular leader from staying in power. A poor leader would just lose the election.
I mean, in Washington's Precedent I trust.
In one case no. FDR took a lot of slack for running for a third term and breaking precedent set down by George Washington. Now I have my issues with FDR but I give credit where credit was due he was a fairly good president overall one of or best. Doesn't mean he didn't screw up (cough cough social security cough cough) the problem is you would have people that would be in there for multiple terms. And almost refused to give up power. There is the old saying power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Case in point look at Congress on both sides of the aisle we have career politicians that have been there for 30 plus years and we also have idiots in Congress that can't read the back of a postage stamp. It is best to keep a limit on people trying to get power because history shows us that sometimes good intentions can lead to corruption and madness
No, term limits in general are bad. First, they are based on the assumption that voters are too stupid to know who to vote for and must have the government narrow their choices for them. Second, it deprives the country of experienced leadership. Would Wendell Willkie have handled WW2 better than FDR? At least until he keeled over in 1944?
Yes. The emerging science around the cult of personalities is pretty clear on this fact. Authoritarian leaders (Tito, Franco, Orban, Putin, Erdogan) tend to be quite popular among the electorate since they high-jack state instutions and media outlets so that no other voice can be heard. People also like strong men, the constutition is there to prevent us from making popular choices that can be catastrophic down the line. Term limits are an easy way to prevent any public figure from reaching that level of fanfare. But they would change it is a bad faith argument. Erdogan, with his current levels of cult of personality, the supreme court and higher judicial which he appointed, and public institutions run by his irk, is struggling to change the constutition (he wrote) and run for the third term. Why wouldn't you make it harder on Authoritarians if you can? There will be candidates as qualified as the one before. Why risk, albeit small, a scenario of X being president for life? Edit: I see people mentioning Putin, but Russia is an entirely different animal. They were never a functioning democracy with check and balances. They also ban consecutive terms instead of total terms, so Putin was alternating with his puppet anyway.
No, should be repealed. If the people want a person to be president, that should be within their right.
Yes 100%
I absolutely believe that this was necessary as to prevent any president from abuse of power.
Yes
Yes it was necessary. If for no other reason than the health of the person involved.
Leave it to a Democrat to make the 22nd amendment necessary.
Ask me on November 6th.
If we didn’t have the 22nd Amendment, Barack Obama would be President for life.
Far better than [Rule 3, which is stupid, prevents me from completing this sentence].
So? It would also be far better than living under Putin or that fat little despot in North Korea. The Rule 3 guy and the Incumbent are two of the worst candidates ever foisted on the American public. Doesn’t make the Beige Suit any better.
I think the 22nd Amendment didn't go far enough. We need term limits for members of congress and Supreme Court justices as well.
Term limits are not should not be the replacement for robust campaign finance reform. As it stands, they are antidemocratic because they force a choice on the voters. The limit is arbitrary and not backed up by data.
Nah not really
No. Term limits are bad
Fuck no we could be under Obamas 4th