AHC Have Republicans successfully repeal the 22nd Amendment

[TenThousandToddlers]

Every Republican candidate since Nixon have supported repealing it. They just never do it.

That's a bit of a stretch. There's a difference between a line here or there and a fleshed out policy position.

There are a number of amendments that the Republicans seem to have a particular problem with. The ones I've heard them particularly arguing to repeal are the 16th and 17th. More usually, they seem to prefer proposing new amendments - admittedly, that isn't unique to Republicans.

Once upon a time the 14th amendment took some flack after it incidentally allowed for application of the bill of rights to the States. Integration of the States into the Federal rights system is broadly supported by everyone now. In fact, I suspect that most people would be surprised if they looked at pre Miranda State laws.

I'm not opposed to removing 17, but I've always figured that's an odd/radical position. Maybe a few out there would support it, but it's not something I've heard often. Opposition to #16 is maybe more common but still not fleshed out or directly sought. It's more like a platitude, and a diminishing one at that as the republican party has changed pretty significantly in the last 10 years.

I hesitate to dive much into this for fear of a political mess, lol.

 

[ECavalier]

They don't ignore it. They rightfully point out it's a giant myth that originated in libertarian circles, popularized by a partisan journalist with no schooling in economics or history, who relied on cherry-picked statistics, and which is propped up by Republicans and Republican-aligned continue to peddle because they have to re-write the history of the New Deal or all their laissez-faire bloviating falls flat. Actual historians call it "New Deal denialism" for a reason...

Personally I would lean more toward the view that the New Deal helped to alleviate rather than prolong the depression, but I would look askance at any ‘actual historian’ drawing an implicit comparison between challenging it’s results and Holocaust denialism.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Personally I would lean more toward the view that the New Deal helped to alleviate rather than prolong the depression, but I would look askance at any ‘actual historian’ drawing an implicit comparison between challenging it’s results and Holocaust denialism.

I mean, the term New Deal denialism was coined by Eric Rauchway. Who, yes, is an actual historian with a Ph.D in the subject and is even a well-respected specialist in the New Deal era. I was not being hyperbolic in the slightest there…

 

[Gnomepilled]

I mean, the term New Deal denialism was coined by Eric Rauchway. Who, yes, is an actual historian with a Ph.D in the subject and is even a well-respected specialist in the New Deal era. I was not being hyperbolic in the slightest there…

I apologize if I was being hyperbolic there. Most of my knowledge of the 20th century comes from Soviet history (despite being American). I am better at telling you the policies of Stalin than FDR.

Personally I would lean more toward the view that the New Deal helped to alleviate rather than prolong the depression, but I would look askance at any ‘actual historian’ drawing an implicit comparison between challenging it’s results and Holocaust denialism.

This is more what I meant. I just couldn't find a way to say it without getting this thread in chat.

 

[RanulfC]

FYI-- Eisenhower wasn't too pleased that his heir apparent was Nixon, but Ike was unwilling to cause a party rift.

Honestly I have seen plenty of things that contradict this.

"Ike and Dick: A Portrait of a Strange Marriage."

Eisenhower had gone out of his way to invest a lot of power and duties to Nixon which was not usually something the President did to a Vice President.
But in truth Ike saw Nixon as his 'aide-de-camp' sort of but he had grown a bit disillusioned by the end of his second term. Hence his very lackluster support of Nixon (to paraphrase: "Give me some time to think of something the Vice President did" aka pretty much indicating there was nothing the Vice President had done over the last eight years that Ike thought was important) Nixon, (rightly) saw it as sabotage of his campaign by someone he'd fully supported over the same period and it did hurt him in the polls.

Randy

 

[Gnomepilled]

Eisenhower had gone out of his way to invest a lot of power and duties to Nixon which was not usually something the President did to a Vice President.
But in truth Ike saw Nixon as his 'aide-de-camp' sort of but he had grown a bit disillusioned by the end of his second term. Hence his very lackluster support of Nixon (to paraphrase: "Give me some time to think of something the Vice President did" aka pretty much indicating there was nothing the Vice President had done over the last eight years that Ike thought was important) Nixon, (rightly) saw it as sabotage of his campaign by someone he'd fully supported over the same period and it did hurt him in the polls.

Randy

Yeah Nixon was like the first modern Vice President. The traditional role of the Vice President is basically useless. I have no idea how such a great man as Madison could have designed such a useless position.

 

[DAv]

Yeah Nixon was like the first modern Vice President. The traditional role of the Vice President is basically useless. I have no idea how such a great man as Madison could have designed such a useless position.

"I can create a political office that will help the governing of our new nation, or I can piss off John Adams. Decisions, decisions..."

 

[Gnomepilled]

"I can create a political office that will help the governing of our new nation, or I can piss off John Adams. Decisions, decisions..."

Don't forget about the original Electoral College system. Each elector got 2 votes and made the Vice President the losing candidate. This was supposed to ease political tension but only did the opposite. Aaron Burr infamously tried to conquer New Spain. After this they split it into 2 elections. The Presidential and Vice Presidential elections. Of course this doesn't matter anyways because of the ticket system but whatever.
Also it wasn't until the 20th century when they established the Vice President became the President upon the death of the President. This was well after multiple presidents have died mind you.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

John Tyler in 1841 established that the elevated Vice-President was indeed the President in every sense of the position. But well into the 20th Century the nominated Vice-Presidents were generally political hacks, ie. Chet Arthur or Charles Curtis

 

[Gnomepilled]

John Tyler in 1841 established that the elevated Vice-President was indeed the President in every sense of the position. But well into the 20th Century the nominated Vice-Presidents were generally political hacks, ie. Chet Arthur or Charles Curtis

I mean to be fair they were never going to be presidents and they knew that. The reason why we have so many vice presidents is because a lot of them tried to primary the president and got replaced.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

The only VPOTUS who challenged his POTUS was Garner and he was going to be replaced anyway. The other Vice-Presidents dropped from the ticket for re-election included Burr (killer), Calhoun (political opponent), Hamlin (political decision), Colfax (scandal), and Wallace (political decision). There were several cases where new VPOTUS candidates were required for the incumbent's second term because of death, like McKinley's first VP, Hobart, whose death opened the spot as VPOTUS for TR (and he may well have been replaced anyway). For the most part between Van Buren's selection of R.M. Johnson in 1836 and JFK's selection of LBJ in 1960 the VPOTUS candidates were not considered potential Presidents (I doubt anyone not named Nixon thought of Tricky as a potential POTUS in 1952). Since JFK the only really hackish VPOTUS were Agnew and arguably Mr. Potatoe Man, although losing and questionable VP candidates would include Miller, Ferraro and Palin.

 

[Gnomepilled]

The only VPOTUS who challenged his POTUS was Garner and he was going to be replaced anyway. The other Vice-Presidents dropped from the ticket for re-election included Burr (killer), Calhoun (political opponent), Hamlin (political decision), Colfax (scandal), and Wallace (political decision). There were several cases where new VPOTUS candidates were required for the incumbent's second term because of death, like McKinley's first VP, Hobart, whose death opened the spot as VPOTUS for TR (and he may well have been replaced anyway). For the most part between Van Buren's selection of R.M. Johnson in 1836 and JFK's selection of LBJ in 1960 the VPOTUS candidates were not considered potential Presidents (I doubt anyone not named Nixon thought of Tricky as a potential POTUS in 1952). Since JFK the only really hackish VPOTUS were Agnew and arguably Mr. Potatoe Man, although losing and questionable VP candidates would include Miller, Ferraro and Palin.

I mean Nixon was pretty famous at the time for exposing Alger Hiss. Also nobody considered Joe Biden presidential material either (including himself). Dick Cheney was definitely considered presidential material (before 2008 at least), of course he was even more liberal than McCain. He was one of the first republican politicians to be pro gay marriage.