PC: Could a Dewey-presidency stop the 22 amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Reading about the 22 amendment I discovered that the ratification process seemed to slow down in the years 1949/50 but took up steam again in 1951 and the amendment became finally ratificated. That led me wonder, if the interest in the amendment waned for some time and if he even could failed under different circumstances. Lets assume Dewey gets elected in 1948. With the long dominance of the Democrats ended, would the Republicans in the states maybe lose interest in the amendment and develope an interest to keep the possibility of a third term for an republican president open?
 
It depends, I suppose, on how it is interpreted. The 22nd amendment was pushed through because the Republicans feared the remainder of the century would be dominated by multi-term New Deal Democratic presidents. Ironically, the amendment hurt the Republicans most of all, given they're the one's who had the most reelection opportunities. That fear may still exist even with Dewey.
 

Stolengood

Banned
I would think that the only conceivable way to stop that amendment is to butterfly the cause of it being a concern; namely, FDR's third and fourth elections to the Presidency.

Get rid of those, and it's still an unofficial taboo, not a Constitutional prohibition.
 
If it is still ratified in 1951, it does not apply to Dewey. With a Korean quagmire and fears of Communist infiltration. He would have a hard time winning in 1952. Hypothetically he could be president until he died in 1973. Of course with a higher stress job, he could die earlier.
 
If it is still ratified in 1951, it does not apply to Dewey. With a Korean quagmire and fears of Communist infiltration. He would have a hard time winning in 1952. Hypothetically he could be president until he died in 1973. Of course with a higher stress job, he could die earlier.

To be fair, much of the Red Baiting McCarthyism was Republican revenge on the Truman administration for Dewey's loss in '48. It was something that even they were forced to admit at a certain point had gone too far, given McCarthy was going off on a Nero-like power tangent.
 
To be fair, much of the Red Baiting McCarthyism was Republican revenge on the Truman administration for Dewey's loss in '48. It was something that even they were forced to admit at a certain point had gone too far, given McCarthy was going off on a Nero-like power tangent.

You dirty communist :p

It feels so hard to believe now that McCarthy was ever a thing.
 
Ironically, the amendment hurt the Republicans most of all, given they're the one's who had the most reelection opportunities.

I don't know about that - if we ignore any butterflies from the amendment's passage, Eisenhower was too old to run for re-election, Nixon resigned, Ford lost, Reagan was also too old and beginning to lose his mind, Bush Sr. lost. George W. Bush would be the first Republican with an opportunity to run for a third term, and in the atmosphere of OTL's 2008 he couldn't have won.

(In fact, the only post-FDR OTL president who I think might have considered running for a third term if it was possible was Clinton, and even he'd be hamstrung by scandal.)

I agree that the fear might still have been there with Dewey, though, and I doubt a Republican victory in 1948 would have killed the 22nd Amendment forever. It might have come up again the next time a popular Democrat came around.
 
You dirty communist :p

It feels so hard to believe now that McCarthy was ever a thing.

Hate is an easy emotion, and one humans have a scientifically proven enjoyment of. Fear is also an easy emotion, and among the most primal. That's why men like McCarthy existed and still exist to this day, and you can find them easily enough if you look since such people always attract followers, and they always will exist.
 
I think Eisenhower and Reagan being 'too old' isn't set-in-stone as a prevention to run again. Eisenhower had his heart attacks, but they weren't public knowledge and he seemed to go through with many of them in office anyway - not to mention his vocal opposition to the limit. Reagan's health decline, again, wasn't public and considering he made ini '84, he could've made it in '88 given his popularity. After all, that's how Bush Sr. got elected.

You don't need to butterfly away their health so much as their concern for it, so to speak.
 
From what I've read, Eisenhower didn't want to be president much anymore and he knew his limitations with his health. Why put his health further at risk doing a job he didn't like? I don't think Nancy would've signed off on a third term run from Reagan, but I guess anything is possible.

Likely, as mentioned, the only really viable third term candidate would be Bill Clinton and Clinton's health was becoming an increasing issue, as well as his scandals.

If things go well enough, Obama might prove to be the most likely of all those presidents to potentially run for a third term if there was no 22nd amendment.
 
From what I've read, Eisenhower didn't want to be president much anymore and he knew his limitations with his health. Why put his health further at risk doing a job he didn't like? I don't think Nancy would've signed off on a third term run from Reagan, but I guess anything is possible.

And this is one of the bits where it gets messy. I've heard some historians say Eisenhower loved the job and probably would've run again if he felt he could've, and some say he hated the job and was glad to step aside. I've also think I heard once that he felt a sense of duty towards holding the office for the country's sake.
 
Or would Truman have run again in 1952? He'd only served 7 years and in OTL would live many decades more, and seemed somewhat lost like younger men are after the Presidency (and needed the job and housing.) Eisenhower was drafted for the race in '52 and probably wouldn't have run against a sitting President, one he knew and respected.

Eisenhower's health sustained him a decade+ past the 1960 election and he'd been in high stress work his entire life, often that sense of being truly needed and constantly challenged is what keeps men alive far more than lots of rest and recreation. Given the Cold War, Space Race, Vietnam, Toppling Castro, the Hungarian Revolt's suppression...there was a lot going on in 1959-60 to encourage Eisenhower to stay there and see them through, which fit his demonstated behaviors in the past. If he did run again in 1960, would he switch Vice Presidents as FDR did or would Nixon get the Presidency after a fatal heart attack for Eisenhower between 1961-64?

Clinton clearly would have run for a third term and might have been more circumspect in his second term if he was planning on a third term. Even with the scandals it seems likely he would have won in 2000 and retained Gore as VP while Bush would have continued as Governor of Texas and with the accumulating gubernatorial records of the Bush brothers, it may well have been Jeb Bush running in 2004 instead.

If 3 terms was the norm or common, I think we'd see a lot more Vice President's changed over 3 elections and 12 years (since they can die, burn out like John Nance Garner, flame out like Spiro Agnew, or have run in the primary against their boss) as well as even more VP's finishing out Presidential terms like Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Ford did.
 
^ Truman was polling poorly and I think did shitty in an early primary, so he pulled out early and with dignity.
 
No 22nd Amendment is POD that changes nothing. eEisenhower had his health concerns. nNancy Reagan wouldn't allow it. cClinton had Clinton fatigue and 2000 was Hillary's turn. tThe second President Bush had low poll numbers.Now getting back to the original question, if Dewey had won in 1948, the amendment had already passed congress. iIf he somehow won in 1944, that might have stopped the amendment.
 
Top