Hi!
What do you think the repercussions would have been had the Constitution mandated a one-year term limit (imagine someone reacting the same way to Washington as they did to FDR or whoever went three terms -- I can't remember which Roosevelt it was)?
We'd have probably gotten the presidency more in tune with the public since the incumbent couldn't get himself elected multiple times. But more importantly, I would figure that the president would spend more time implementing an agenda better suited for the country instead of spending a good portion of his first term trying to get himself re-elected.
I've left open the possibility of a Grover Cleveland-style scenario where a candidate can earn two nonconsecutive terms. I'm instinctively thinking that we'd outlaw that because it would allow a popular president to count on re-election one term later and possibly lead to a pair of presidents alternating on and off.
What do you think?
What do you think the repercussions would have been had the Constitution mandated a one-year term limit (imagine someone reacting the same way to Washington as they did to FDR or whoever went three terms -- I can't remember which Roosevelt it was)?
We'd have probably gotten the presidency more in tune with the public since the incumbent couldn't get himself elected multiple times. But more importantly, I would figure that the president would spend more time implementing an agenda better suited for the country instead of spending a good portion of his first term trying to get himself re-elected.
I've left open the possibility of a Grover Cleveland-style scenario where a candidate can earn two nonconsecutive terms. I'm instinctively thinking that we'd outlaw that because it would allow a popular president to count on re-election one term later and possibly lead to a pair of presidents alternating on and off.
What do you think?