22nd Amendment, times two

If the 22nd Amendment set the limit to four terms instead of two as per OTL, what would the effects be? No Ike in 1960, but possibly Nixon, barring Watergate in '76 and '80 and Clinton in 00' and '04. Thereby butterflying Hillary. And George W. Bush, until 2008. (This is an idea for my planned TL, RFK Renewed...)
 
How about no 22nd amendment at all. I think it would've been great had Clinton been able to stay in office 16 years. Had Reagen been elected in 1976 he could have stayed in office until 1992 avoiding Bush senior. Barack Obama for 16 years would be incredible.
 
So, like, the 44th ammendment? :p

Seriously, though, why would this happen? The 22nd IIRC was a reaction to "King Franklin's" reign of nearly 16 years.
 
It will happen because I will delay the ratification process long enough to expire, and some states won't ratify that did in OTL. We needed FDR for the war, and just because G.W. was too old in 1796 doesn't make it "holy". Ironically MA was the first to reject it. I wonder why...:rolleyes:
 
It will happen because I will delay the ratification process long enough to expire, and some states won't ratify that did in OTL. We needed FDR for the war, and just because G.W. was too old in 1796 doesn't make it "holy". Ironically MA was the first to reject it. I wonder why...:rolleyes:

George Washington purposefully refused another term because he saw that the same person holding power for that long was a bad thing, it did'nt have to do with his age.

Even without FDR we would have gotten a similar amendment at some point in the 20th century because people would realize that the same person should not hold power theoretically indefinitely.
 
George Washington purposefully refused another term because he saw that the same person holding power for that long was a bad thing, it did'nt have to do with his age.

That was part of it. The other part was that he was worried about the precedent that would be set should he die in office.
 
OK about Washington, since he had to set a precedent. Surely we can trust the voters if they want to re-elect an incumbent president who's doing a reasonably good job? Obviously they all won't run four times, most presidents are in mid 50's at the beginning of their term, and they get too old and tired, or exhaust their political capital. In OTL, Ike wouldn't run in '60, Reagan wouldn't be elected at age 77, and Bush would win no state north of Mason Dixon in 2008. As per my TL, it can be proposed, but it doesn't have to pass. For FDR, they knew he would die in office (he proposed to resign at the end of WWII), but the Dems had no choice. Truman was too unknown, Wallace was far too radical, and otherwise Dewey would win. That Obama idea might be a good idea for the Dems here, since it appears that he has no foreseeable successor. The GOP has about 5 or 6 possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Surely we can trust the voters if they want to re-elect an incumbent president who's doing a reasonably good job?

Apart from the fact that people don't technically elect the president..

Honestly, no, you can't, because the majority of people will fall for lies, that's why you have to limit how long someone has power, to prevent them from simply lieing to get re-elected indefinitely, or in essence a career politician.
 
So, like, the 44th ammendment? :p

Seriously, though, why would this happen? The 22nd IIRC was a reaction to "King Franklin's" reign of nearly 16 years.

Yes, but if FDR's reign was viewed as an exception to the rule, given the economy and war, we might not need a 22nd amendment. After all, the election process itself is an inherent "term limit," especially in a critical and literate 20th century. As for Reagan, I think his health was declining at the end of his last year to the extent he would never have considered a third term.
 
Regan got Alzheimer's officially around 1994 I think, and was already going senile by the late 1980's IMHO. Bush is also a no go for another term for obvious reasons.

Even without FDR we would have gotten a similar amendment at some point in the 20th century because people would realize that the same person should not hold power theoretically indefinitely.
...Why? Its not like FDR was the first one to try for more than two terms or consider it. Grant is an obvious example, of course. And TR was basically going for a third term in 1912 since he had served out most of McKinley's second term following the assassination. And an Amendment to limit didn't come in either of those eras. And it would not be theoretically indefinitely. It is for as long as they are reelected in free elections and taking into account that all people obviously die. So what would make them "realize" that a person shouldn't be reelected more than twice and it should be legally banned (I disagree with it as an inherent and undeniable truth that either reelection to more than two terms is infinite rule or dictatorship or that said reelection is inherently bad as you seem to present it, not to mention what I said about the "indefinite" Presidency.)
 
It will happen because I will delay the ratification process long enough to expire...


Toryanna68,

Once they pass both houses of Congress and are sent to the states, amendments don't ever "expire" unless Congress writes an "expiration" date into the legislation. That practice has only been common since the 20th Century.

The 27th was passed by Congress in 1789 and was finally ratified by the states in 1992.


Bill
 
Last edited:
Here it is. Just stretch it out or reject it in more states...
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
 
If you extend it to allow The President to serve up to four terms, that's 16 years. To a large degree what then is the point to having The 22nd Ammendment at all?
 
We must remember Stalin, Hitler, Franco and Mussolini became dictators in the thirties and at the passage of Amendment 22, only two were still alive. FDR was advised in 1932 not to pursue the presidency unless he could (for a time) assume the role of dictator. And in 1933, Executive Order 6012 (outlawing gold coins as money in the "land of the free") was as dictatorial as anything a US president ever did.

Butterfly away WWII (or its severity) and there would not be a 22nd amendment.
 
In the RFK Renewed TL, the 22nd had taken too long to ratify, thereby not activating it. Presidencies have proceeded as per OTL until 1968. So far...
 
Top