Instead of 22nd Amendment, U.S. moves toward separate and ceremonial head-of-state?

Let's say the U.S. House of Representatives votes on a "First Citizen" to meet returning Olympic athletes and in general be a unifying figure in both good times and bad.

And for some of the same reasons that the 22nd Amendment was passed and ratified, the feeling that FDR was too popular and the desire to peel off some of these duties.
 
Then no one would run for president ever again because there's no glory in being elected to the position of figurehead.
 

SsgtC

Banned
What you're looking for is a constitutional monarchy. Or a Parliamentary system. I don't think it happens. Not without a new Constitution.
 
Then no one would run for president ever again because there's no glory in being elected to the position of figurehead.

The President in this ATL would be a Prime Minister allegory. This idea comes up somewhere on the internet every once in a while.

To the OP; not going to happen, the prestige of the office and the greatness of the men who have held it prevent it. That stuff has a powerful affect on the popular imagination. It would also be perceived as possibly undermining the position of the President at a time when the person holding the position was well and truly Leader of the Free World. Taking away the imperial nature of the office could make that harder to embody.

There's a reason no one with actual influence has ever seriously proposed this.
 
This would be seen almost as monarchical, I suppose. Not because of the prime minister/monarch separation but because it was taking away the president from roles in which he communicated with the nation. One of the thing people loved about presidents was the thought that anyone could become one. Hell, even early on the political machines made out plantation owners to seem like homesteaders to make them look more appealing to the electorate. And the very idea of FDR being "too popular" would make the idea of taking away his unofficial job of meeting people ridiculous. Sure, they made it so that people couldn't be president for more than two terms after him, but why on Earth would Congress and the States decide during his presidency to change the Constitution so that there was now a new person on the payroll? Might end up with constant challenges to future presidents as to whether or not their talking to the electorate, Congress, or foreign leaders was unconstitutional.

Let's say the U.S. House of Representatives votes on a "First Citizen" to meet returning Olympic athletes and in general be a unifying figure in both good times and bad.

And for some of the same reasons that the 22nd Amendment was passed and ratified, the feeling that FDR was too popular and the desire to peel off some of these duties.
Wait, just the House? Yah, they don't have that authority. At least not enough to make the President stop meeting people.
 
. . . not going to happen, the prestige of the office and the greatness of the men who have held it prevent it. . .
The interesting part, I would argue that the 22nd Amendment has in fact reduced the power and effectiveness of the presidency.

The President is a lame duck from the evening of mid-terms of his or her second term. And some people would even argue from the evening of his or her re-election. Because you don't have that give-and-take in which you can help a fellow party member with their next election, either with more or less energy, depending on how much they have helped you with your political goals.

Toward the end of their second term, U.S. presidents really are out of the picture.

==========

Post-WWII presidents often have drifted from primarily a domestic agenda early in their presidency to primarily a foreign policy agenda. And often they have done some sneaky things and have gotten in trouble (or escaped from getting into trouble).
 
Last edited:
Meeting returning athletes and generally being a unifying figure isn't a whole hell of a lot. Sounds like something a VP could be tasked with now and again if the prez was feeling a little tuckered out. Also, sounds like the opportunity for the mouthpiece guy to take a contrary position to the president, which isn't really "unifying"...
 
The interesting part, I would argue that the 22nd Amendment has in fact reduced the power and effectiveness of the presidency.

The President is a lame duck from the evening of mid-terms of his or her second term. And some people would even argue from the evening of his or her re-election. Because you don't have that give-and-take in which you can help a fellow party member with their next election, either with more or less energy, depending on how much they have helped you with your political goals.

Toward the end of their second term, U.S. presidents really are out of the picture.

==========

Post-WWII presidents often have drifted from primarily a domestic agenda early in their presidency to primarily a foreign policy agenda. And often they have done some sneaky things and have gotten in trouble (or escaped from getting into trouble).

I would disagree. Tradition, age, and health (folks used to break down a lot faster) limited all Presidents in U.S. history except FDR to two terms. The Amendment was a reaction to him alone.

It was already pretty much a de facto rule, the 22nd just codified it.
 
I would disagree. Tradition, age, and health (folks used to break down a lot faster) limited all Presidents in U.S. history except FDR to two terms. The Amendment was a reaction to him alone.

It was already pretty much a de facto rule, the 22nd just codified it.

Not following Washington's precedent was an extremely cocky idea to most Americans back then:

7576-image-700-450-fit.jpg


So definitely agree.
 
Not following Washington's precedent was an extremely cocky idea to most Americans back then:

7576-image-700-450-fit.jpg


So definitely agree.
We should also take into account how Washington originally said he was not having a third term for health reasons. Considering he died two years later, after no longer having the stress of office, it is clear that he wasn't just bluffing or trying to bow out gracefully. But yes, a lot of of the more famous presidents aged greatly in office, though the four or eight years they were in their likely contributed.

As for FDR, I think people gave him a pass because of the 'no changing horses in the middle of a stream' mindset. Also helped along by FDR manipulating thighs a bit to get himself another nomination from the Democrats.
 
I would still argue that there's a difference between a tradition, where given circumstances a president might always decide to . . .

versus a hardwired rule.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I would still argue that there's a difference between a tradition, where given circumstances a president might always decide to . . .

versus a hardwired rule.
Not always. As an example, look at the UK. By law, the Monarch has extensive and significant Reserve Powers, far greater than any other Head of State in the world. But by TRADITION, they don't exercise them. And if they did, it would likely trigger a constitutional crises.

Which is basically what happened when FDR ran for a third term. By TRADITION, a President was limited to two terms. When FDR violated that tradition, it triggered a constitutional crises and the 22nd Amendment was introduced to compensate for it.
 
I would disagree. Tradition, age, and health (folks used to break down a lot faster) limited all Presidents in U.S. history except FDR to two terms. The Amendment was a reaction to him alone.

It was already pretty much a de facto rule, the 22nd just codified it.

I would argue along this line. I think there's legitimacy to the argument that the president is a lame duck for the entirety of his second term, but I think that has more to do with party polarization, ideological sorting, and the length of the presidential campaign expanding dramatically. There has rarely been an expectation that a president would seriously consider a third term, and so I think most presidents were considered lame ducks in this way since Washington established the tradition. The difference, however, is now parties have a real incentive to actually wait the president out and the American people are distracted by a new campaign for the White House
 
Let's say the U.S. House of Representatives votes on a "First Citizen" to meet returning Olympic athletes and in general be a unifying figure in both good times and bad.

And for some of the same reasons that the 22nd Amendment was passed and ratified, the feeling that FDR was too popular and the desire to peel off some of these duties.

MAYBE you could have gotten this in 1792, but by the time of Roosevelt you'd never convince people to split the head of government and head of state positions. Even tradition/legitimacy, usually one of the strongest bulwarks of a purely ceremonial H.O.S, would be against it
 
couldn't we combine conservatives against Roosevelt, progressives against an overly strong presidency, and maybe more admiring feeling toward the British right after World War II?
 
Last edited:
Top