WI: One-term 22nd Amendment?

Gan

Banned
What if the 22nd Amendment of the United States Constitution restricted Presidents to a single term in office? How would this change American Politics of the late 20th Century and early 21st Century?
 
I think there was an attempt in the 1910s to limit Presidents to 1 six-year term. Not quite what you're looking for but interesting.
 
That's the system the Philippines has I wonder if that's where they got the idea from?

The idea goes way back before the constitutional amendment nearly adopted in 1913. "The proposal of a single six-year Presidential term has been around for a long time. High-minded men have urged it from the beginning of the Republic. The Constitutional Convention turned it down in 1787, and recurrent efforts to put it in the Constitution have regularly failed in the two centuries since..." http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-6year.html The idea was actually put into the Confederate Constitution: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible.." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp The idea was also adopted in some Latin American Constitutions (though some of them only ban re-election to consecutive terms).
 
The original 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the required three-fourths of states in 1951.

if it had limited presidents to a single 4-year term . . .

might reduce the power of the president vis-a-vis Congress, which might actually be a good thing! :)

In any case, American politics in the second half of the 20th Century plays out different. Congress may not so readily and automatically yield on foreign policy.
 
I don't think any of the drafters of the 22nd Amendment even considered a single four year term. After all, the Republicans who controlled Congress expected to win the White House in 1948--and why should the president they elected be rendered *that* powerless? I think the last serious advocacy of a single four-year term was by the Whigs in the 1840's, as a reaction to the "executive tyranny" of Jackson and Van Buren. Harrison said in his 1841 inaugural address:

"I proceed to state in as summary a manner as I can my opinion of the sources of the evils which have been so extensively complained of and the correctives which may be applied. Some of the former are unquestionably to be found in the defects of the Constitution; others, in my judgment, are attributable to a misconstruction of some of its provisions. Of the former is the eligibility of the same individual to a second term of the Presidency. The sagacious mind of Mr. Jefferson early saw and lamented this error, and attempts have been made, hitherto without success, to apply the amendatory power of the States to its correction. As, however, one mode of correction is in the power of every President, and consequently in mine, it would be useless, and perhaps invidious, to enumerate the evils of which, in the opinion of many of our fellow-citizens, this error of the sages who framed the Constitution may have been the source and the bitter fruits which we are still to gather from it if it continues to disfigure our system. It may be observed, however, as a general remark, that republics can commit no greater error than to adopt or continue any feature in their systems of government which may be calculated to create or increase the lover of power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs; and surely nothing is more likely to produce such a state of mind than the long continuance of an office of high trust. Nothing can be more corrupting, nothing more destructive of all those noble feelings which belong to the character of a devoted republican patriot. When this corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim. If this is true, it is the part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principal; the servant, not the master. Until an amendment of the Constitution can be effected public opinion may secure the desired object. I give my aid to it by renewing the pledge heretofore given that under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term." http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres26.html

(The reference to Jefferson is a little misleading. He at first wanted a seven-year term with no eligibility for re-election. But later he concluded "that 7. years is too long to be irremovable, and that there should be a peaceable way of withdrawing a man in midway who is doing wrong. The service for 8. years with a power to remove at the end of the first four, comes nearly to my principle as corrected by experience. And it is in adherence to that that I determined to withdraw at the end of my second term. The danger is that the indulgence & attachments of the people will keep a man in the chair after he becomes a dotard, that reelection through life shall become habitual, & election for life follow that. Genl. Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after 8. years. I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the constitution." http://infomotions.com/etexts/literature/american/1700-1799/jefferson-letters-256.htm)
 
Short answer: Not going to happen.

Long answer: the changes in the US political scene that would be required to get the 22nd to limit the presidency to a single 4 year term would probably be FAR greater than what would result from that change.

Longer answer: There is a LONG tradition of 2 four year terms, first 'violated' by FDR. People just wanted to fix that tradition in law, they didn't actually want a change. A single term would be a revolutionary change, and there was no appetite or movement for that. Even the movement for a single 6 year term had long since petered out. So. To get a single 4 year term, you need a major, major change in the US political scene before the issue is even raised, let alone reaches the multiple supermajorities needed to pass a constitutional amendment.
 
I agree with the previous commentator.

There have always been proposals for a single term presidency floating around, and this was been the practice in Latin America, though the trend recently has been imitate the United States and go for shorter renewable terms.

To do this for the US, you really need a POD before 1900. Either Washington decides against a second term, which in fact he almost did, so the two term tradition becomes a one term tradition. Or a single six year term is implemented at the Constitutional Conventiion or before the war with Mexico. The presidency did not really gell constitutionally before the 1840s so there is some opportunity to get the single six year term. But after Lincoln, forget it. And there are obviously lots of butterflies from this.

Another intriguing variation would be for the 1787 convention to not bother with the Electoral College and just have the House of Representatives elect the President (direct popular election being pretty ASB, even now), or go with a present day South African style system where the House of Representatives not only elects the Prez, but can fire and replace him at will.
 
I agree with the previous commentator.

There have always been proposals for a single term presidency floating around, and this was been the practice in Latin America, though the trend recently has been imitate the United States and go for shorter renewable terms.

To do this for the US, you really need a POD before 1900. Either Washington decides against a second term, which in fact he almost did, so the two term tradition becomes a one term tradition. Or a single six year term is implemented at the Constitutional Conventiion or before the war with Mexico. The presidency did not really gell constitutionally before the 1840s so there is some opportunity to get the single six year term. But after Lincoln, forget it.


Make that "after Wilson".

The 6-year Amendment had made it through the Senate with overwhelming Democratic support (only one Democrat voted nay), plus the backing of about half the Republicans. Had Wilson not butted in, a similar voting pattern would have carried it easily in the House.

Ratification is of course less certain, but in the whole 20C, only two Amendments have failed to get it once submitted, and both of these - the 1920s Child Labor Amendment and the 1970s Equal Rights Amendment - failed principally due to opposition in the South. As only one Southern Senator (a Tennessee Republican) voted against the Single Term Amendment, it would not have faced that problem. So to me its chances look pretty good.
 
Top