WI: Term Limits Are Never Established?

What if in 1952, the Constitution was never amended so that Presidents would be limited by two terms? Although I find it unlikely that Dwight Eisenhower would be willing to run for a third term, given his personal feelings about it and his declining health, I could see this lack of limits affecting who runs for President down the line. What do you guys think?
 
I feel like this would only come into play when Ronald Reagan's second term ended. JFK was assassinated, Johnson's Vietnam policies were unpopular, Nixon's Watergate Scandal, Ford's pardon of Nixon, and Jimmy Carter's presiding over a worsening economy would prevent any of these people from holding more than one term in office. Reagan was a very popular President, and I feel he could have gained a third term in office. A fourth however, would likely not occur, due to his declining health in the early 90s.
 
I feel like this would only come into play when Ronald Reagan's second term ended. JFK was assassinated, Johnson's Vietnam policies were unpopular, Nixon's Watergate Scandal, Ford's pardon of Nixon, and Jimmy Carter's presiding over a worsening economy would prevent any of these people from holding more than one term in office. Reagan was a very popular President, and I feel he could have gained a third term in office. A fourth however, would likely not occur, due to his declining health in the early 90s.

The point I'm trying to make is that due to this lack of policy, it's possible entirely different people would run. What do you think?
 

GarethC

Donor
I feel like this would only come into play when Ronald Reagan's second term ended. JFK was assassinated, Johnson's Vietnam policies were unpopular, Nixon's Watergate Scandal, Ford's pardon of Nixon, and Jimmy Carter's presiding over a worsening economy would prevent any of these people from holding more than one term in office. Reagan was a very popular President, and I feel he could have gained a third term in office. A fourth however, would likely not occur, due to his declining health in the early 90s.
ISTR that during his second term Reagan had noticeable issues with dementia. At 78 he would be unquestionably old for another term. Was he as electable as Bush, or indeed electable at all?
 
Reagan was popular in 1988, but not incredibly so (rather like Obama at the moment). Not only would he be old, and mentally deteriorating, he'd be under fire for Iran Contra.

I think your most likely bet for a three-term President under this POD is Bill Clinton, who would have won 2000.
 
Here's an idea, Ron attempts a third term run but Bush attempts to primary him knowing his health will only get worse.

This could get ugly.
 
The only two I could see running for a third term would be Clinton and Obama (although the first would butterfly the second). Eisenhower and Reagan had the popularity, but there health would have probably prevented it. But this premise presumes that the pre Roosevelt convention of Presidents only running for two terms doesnt return, which it likely would, given what happened to the man himself.
 

jahenders

Banned
I think Reagan would have run and would have won. His health was declining, but there could be a 'deal' with Bush that Reagan would resign if/when things got bad. Bush, then, would likely have taken over in mid-term (@1986) and would have likely been fresh enough that he'd win in 1988.
 
Eisenhower couldn't run due to his health
LBJ due to the fact that he narrowly won New Hampshire
Nixon because watergate
Reagan because his health
Clinton because Monica Lewinsky
Bush because he was unpopular

I don't see why anyone would run for a 3rd term (Obama might be the exception to this)
 
I agree that, until Clinton, no president was really in the position to run for a third term. However, I think just the possibility of serving a third term would have a big impact VP selection.

After all, the VP slot is often awarded to ambitious politicians to use as a stepping stone for their own bid in eight years, with the tacit support from the president. But if the president isn't necessarily stepping down in eight years, then that changes the dynamic entirely; you wouldn't want to give a platform to a rival to potentially primary you, or who wouldn't go along with additional terms; likewise, a young, eager politician might be less inclined to play second banana if it's for an indeterminate number of years. So for example, Clinton might very well not pick Gore here, and choose a boring elder statesman.

Different VPs would have an impact on successive politics; not in the sense that a different veep would flip an election, but that it would change careers.
 
I agree that, until Clinton, no president was really in the position to run for a third term. However, I think just the possibility of serving a third term would have a big impact VP selection.

After all, the VP slot is often awarded to ambitious politicians to use as a stepping stone for their own bid in eight years, with the tacit support from the president. But if the president isn't necessarily stepping down in eight years, then that changes the dynamic entirely; you wouldn't want to give a platform to a rival to potentially primary you, or who wouldn't go along with additional terms; likewise, a young, eager politician might be less inclined to play second banana if it's for an indeterminate number of years. So for example, Clinton might very well not pick Gore here, and choose a boring elder statesman.

Different VPs would have an impact on successive politics; not in the sense that a different veep would flip an election, but that it would change careers.

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. I feel that it would be almost impossible for certain people to continue running for President in this timeline, or even bother running in the first place. I actually believe that neither JFK nor LBJ would have ran in in this timeline, as they both suffered from severe health problems that would eventually catch up to them.
 
Reagan was popular in 1988, but not incredibly so (rather like Obama at the moment). Not only would he be old, and mentally deteriorating, he'd be under fire for Iran Contra.

I think your most likely bet for a three-term President under this POD is Bill Clinton, who would have won 2000.

If Reagan looks like he's going for a third term the Dems impeach the s*** out of him for Iran-Contra. Part of the reason that they didn't do it OTL was because they didn't want to make Bush an incumbent come '88.

The only president who could conceivably win a third term in an ATL resembling ours is Bill Clinton and even that's not a sure bet.
 
If Reagan looks like he's going for a third term the Dems impeach the s*** out of him for Iran-Contra. Part of the reason that they didn't do it OTL was because they didn't want to make Bush an incumbent come '88.

The only president who could conceivably win a third term in an ATL resembling ours is Bill Clinton and even that's not a sure bet.

The bigger part of it was Reagan was too popular.
 
By 1988, if (as I think) nobody had run for a third term after 1944, then even though there would be no anti-third-term *amendment* the anti-third term *tradition* would be back in force, with FDR being seen as a very extraordinary exception due to World War II. In fact, long before 1988, Reagan--like other post-WW2 presidents--would probably have pledged not to seek a third term
 
The bigger part of it was Reagan was too popular.

But that's the whole point of impeaching him, or at least making the scandal stink hard enough, long enough for his poll numbers to drop. If that was the only way for the Dems to beat him (whether or not it would've actually resulted in him being removed from office) then that's what they would've done.
 
But that's the whole point of impeaching him, or at least making the scandal stink hard enough, long enough for his poll numbers to drop. If that was the only way for the Dems to beat him (whether or not it would've actually resulted in him being removed from office) then that's what they would've done.

I doubt it would work , which is why they didn't even try it. It didn't work with Clinton later and I doubt it would have worked then.
 
Akhil Reed Amar argued in the "Biography of the Constitution" was one of the main effects of the 22nd and the 25th Amendments was to enhance the stature of the Vice Presidency.

Between the passages of the 12th and the 22nd Amendment, only one sitting Vice President was nominated for President by a major party. I don't think anyone other than Van Buren even came close. Only three former Vice Presidents were nominated, all of whom had become President due to the death of the incumbent.

After the passage of the 22nd Amendment, four sitting and four former Vice Presidents received major party presidential nominations, out of a total of thirteen holders of the office after the amendment became operable.

There is also some evidence that the 22nd Amendment weakens a President's effectiveness in his second term.

As has been pointed out, historically there has not been much need for law to keep a two term President from seeking a third term, since age, health, and voter fatigue are usually enough to do the job. Really only FDR and Grant tried, plus Theodore Roosevelt though technically he served only one full term in the office. Added to this list, Van Buren and Cleveland ran for the office more than eight years after they were first elected, though they had both served only one term.

I think actually having a three term presidency would have been a once in a century event at the most, though the amendment has some use as an obstacle for a dictator to overcome.
 
Top