US Constitution has different rules for elected officials

How do you think the country would have evolved if the Constitution required that:

a) A presidential, congressional, or Supreme Court candidate could not have served before in any of those three roles. An incumbent president could not run again: the President gets the four years in office and that's it.
b) The amount of money the candidate can spend on electioneering and so forth has a hard cap. Exceeding the cap invalidates the candidate.

If a Vice President or some other officer assumes the Presidency in an emergency situation, his term would last four years and another election would held after that. Presidential elections would therefore not always occur on years which are multiples of 4.

How do you think the government would have evolved with rules like this making sure that officers won't spend all their time trying to get themselves re-elected? It sounds like something the Founding Fathers would think of to ensure that one president doesn't effectively become president for life (in effect, they're imposing a one-term limit).

ACG
 
Note that the Supreme Court candidate would have an 8 year term (the longest of the three -- you can't serve on the Supreme Court in two terms if the appointment is for life).

You may want add this rule: a candidate who has served fewer than 4 years of the presidency, 6 as a congressman, or 8 as a Supreme Court justice -- and who has resigned under honorable circumstances -- may run for re-election if (a) the House and Senate agree with 2/3 majority, and (b) he runs for the office he had vacated. If he is re-elected, his term would end when the total amount of time served in the two terms reaches the limit. No Grover Clevelands. What's more, if Grover Cleveland became President midway through his predecessor's term, he could run for re-election but would have to leave two years into his second term.
 
Last edited:
b) The amount of money the candidate can spend on electioneering and so forth has a hard cap. Exceeding the cap invalidates the candidate.

The founding fathers would never go for that. And if the ASBs steep in and does that, a dollar was worth much less back then so it would go silly quickly when you only get to spend 150 dollars...

Edit: It would work wonders for McCarthy: "I have, here in my hand, a list of people making monitary contributions to the Communist Party working in our State Department, Military and Intelligence Service. "
 
Last edited:
b) The amount of money the candidate can spend on electioneering and so forth has a hard cap. Exceeding the cap invalidates the candidate.

This wouldn't make any sense to the founders. They didn't realize there were going to be candidates or campaigns, especially for the Presidency.
 
Agree with Mr. Mandias but on the first section that is entirely plausible but I think the Court would be for life because of the sheer newness of the thing. I can see the financing section coming later in the spirit of maintaining this system. Also it is worth noting that California in OTL has term limits and has effectivly managed itself into a hole because everyone who knows how to run the state can't run for reelection (heard this on MPR). I think a similar problem might evolve in this ATL particularly with slavery being such a big issue. Remember that Clay Webster and Douglas would have been out of office under these terms and would have been unable to work their legislative magic
 
Top