One-term limit mandated in US constitution

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
... the presidency more in tune with the public since the incumbent couldn't get himself elected multiple times ...

Well as the Political Parties gained control, I'm not sure that's even possible. Definitely would cut down on the impact of presidential legacies ... good and bad.
 
The main effect would be that the Executive would never have more power than the Legislature, as has been the case for most of the last 50 years. If the President is only in office for one year, the military and the civil service can't count on the White House to provide stable guidance. Congressional committees would step in to fill the gap.
 
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)?

What do you think?

I think you should clarify your WI. Are you suggesting a constitutional limit to a single four year term or - as originally posted - a one-year term?
 
Candidates would be eligible for a single four-year term.

If a vice president takes over due to the incapacitation of the president, he can run for re-election if he served less than half of the former president's term (I hadn't really thought that through yet -- how does it work today?)
 
Candidates would be eligible for a single four-year term.

If a vice president takes over due to the incapacitation of the president, he can run for re-election if he served less than half of the former president's term (I hadn't really thought that through yet -- how does it work today?)

OK, that moderates my answer a bit. Four years is enough to consolidate power in the Presidency.
 

Jasen777

Donor
At the time of the Constitution, if there's going to be a one-term limit, the term itself is likely to be longer than 4 years.
 
All right, how about one six year term, with the same rules concerning the succession? Didn't the Confederacy use a six year term?
 
All right, how about one six year term, with the same rules concerning the succession? Didn't the Confederacy use a six year term?

Yes, they did.

I'm against the idea. What if you can't find anyone better, or at least similarly qualified, to fill the position?
 
All right, how about one six year term, with the same rules concerning the succession? Didn't the Confederacy use a six year term?

They did (or didn't since Jefferson Davis never really completedly his first term).

The single six year term has alot to offer. There is a WI about here with the presidents from such an arrangement.

1789-1795 George Washington
1795-1801 John Adams
1801-1807 Thomas Jefferson (DR)
1807-1813 James Madison (DR)
1813-1819 James Monroe (DR)
1819-1825 Andrew Jackson (D)
1825-1831 John Quincy Adams
1831-1837 Martin Van Buren (D)
1837 William Henry Harrison (W) (dies in office)
1837-1843 Hugh Lawson White (W)
1843-1849 Lewis Cass (D)
1849-1852 Henry Clay (W) (dies in office)
1852-1861 Winfield Scott (W)
1861 Stephen Douglas (U) (dies in office)
1861-1867 Benjamin Fitzpatrick (U)
1867-1873 William H. Seward (R)
1873-1879 Elihu B. Washburne (R)
1879-1885 Winfield S. Hancock (R)
1885-1886 James G. Blaine (R) [assassinated]
1886-1891 James Garfield (R)
1891-1897 Grover Cleveland (D)
1897-1901 William McKinley (R) [assassinated]
1901-1903 Theodore Roosevelt (R)
1903-1909 William Jennings Bryan (D)
1909-1915 Theodore Roosevelt (R)
1915-1921 Charles Evans Hughes (R)
1921-1923 Warren G. Harding (R) (dies in office)
1923-1927 Calvin Coolidge (R)
1927-1933 Herbert Hoover (P)
1933-1935 Huey P. Long (D) [assassinated]
1935-1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
1945-1951 Harry S Truman (D)
1951-1957 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
1957-1963 Adlai E. Stevenson (D)
1963-1969 Nelson Rockefeller (R)
1969-1972 George Wallace (D) [assassinated]
1972-1975 George McGovern (D)
1975-1981 Barry Goldwater (R)
1981-1987 Ronald Reagan (R)
1987-1991 Edward M. Kennedy (D) (impeached and convicted)
1991-1993 Bruce Babbit (D)
1993-1997 William J. Clinton (D) (impeached and convicted)
1997-2005 Albert Gore (D)
2005-2011 John E. Bush (R)

In this ATL the American Civil War is a brief squirmish during the Winfield Scott Administration (1852-1861) that Scott manages to negotiate a peaceful settlement and a resolution on the gradual abolition of slavery. The succeeding Douglas-Fitzpatrick Administration is seen as a 'national union' party that surprisingly works.
 
One year is far to short a time for one term. Especially if the president is limited to that one term. Not only does that limit the president's time to get things done, it also creates a highly unstable government. The first few months of every year would be spent putting together the current administration, giving a nation's enemies plenty of opportunity for an attack. And a lot of the taxpayers' money would be used up - putting the administration together and having an election every year.
 
I personally find the US time limit a bit strange, somewhat against the idea of democracy, the idea that the people choose their leaders. Since the War we (Australia) have had PMs that lasted 16, 12 and 9 years and others that were gone in 3 despite winning two elections. This strikes me as more flexible, more responsive to the will of the voters. Isn't it a bit confining not to be able to have an outstanding President stay for a 3rd term?
 
I personally find the US time limit a bit strange, somewhat against the idea of democracy, the idea that the people choose their leaders. Since the War we (Australia) have had PMs that lasted 16, 12 and 9 years and others that were gone in 3 despite winning two elections. This strikes me as more flexible, more responsive to the will of the voters. Isn't it a bit confining not to be able to have an outstanding President stay for a 3rd term?

Isn't the idea of an 'outstanding President' subjective? Certainly not all voters agreed. The term limits deal is unfortunate and has been duplicated in the US at the state level and in many instances applied to legislators and I think people are figuring out that short term service does not work.

However, to split hairs on your observation, the idea of democracy is not that people choose their leaders - they participate themselves. The principle of a representative democracy is that the people choose their leaders.
 
Representative democracy is subjective, the US voters can decide. But only to extent, they can't decide that a president is so good that they can stay for a 3rd term. I don't think such a decision would occur very often, and perhaps today's political strategists could manipulate the system for their advantage, but wouldn't it be nice to have the choice that other successful democracies have?
 
Representative democracy is subjective, the US voters can decide. But only to extent, they can't decide that a president is so good that they can stay for a 3rd term. I don't think such a decision would occur very often, and perhaps today's political strategists could manipulate the system for their advantage, but wouldn't it be nice to have the choice that other successful democracies have?

Ah, but then doesn't the discussion then turn to the type/form of government? It certainly would be easier in a parliamentary form of government for a 'popular' president to stay in power.
 
Yes, that's how it works here. The Liberals won power in 1949, Menzies was PM until 1965 and they held power until 1972. Labour won power in 1983, Hawke was PM until 1992 and they held power until 1996. Liberals won again in 1996 and John Howard was PM throughout the whole Liberal reign until 2007. All of these involved multiple election wins, I think Menzies won 5 elections, including two within 18 months of each other in 1954-5, the canny bastard.

I suppose the first two examples could be compared to Reagan-Bush's 12 years. But Reagan was constituationally not allowed to go for the entire time regardless of his competence or lack thereof.
 
single six-my idea
1789 washington
1795 John Adams
1801 jEFFERSON
1807 Madison
1813 Monroe
1819 John Quincy Adams
1825 Clay
1831 Jackson
1837 Van Buren
1843 Cass
1849 Taylor
1850 Fillmore
1854 Pierce
1860 Lincoln
1865 Hamlin
1873 Grant
1879 Hayes
1885 Cleveland
1891 Harrison
1897 McKinley
1901 Hay
1905 Teddy Roosevelt
1915 Wilson
1921 Harding
1923 Coolidge
1933 Dawes (Coolidge reelected 1926,died in office)
1933 Franklin Roosevelt
1939 Wheeler (disaster for world-isolationist, German victory, no Pearl Harbour)
1945 Dewey
1951 Warren
1957 Stevenson
1963 Jack Kennedy
1968 Johnson
1969 Nixon
1975 Bobby Kennedy
1981 Reagan
1987 GeorgeBush
1993 Clinton
1999 George W.Bush
2005 McCain
2011 Obama
2017 Trump
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top