Slightly different 22d Amendment

[Xen]

What if the 22d Amendment were slightly different by allowing the President of the United States to serve up to three terms rather than a limit of two? How would this effect the history of the United States? By using our timeline series of Presidents there are only three that could have achieved this

Dwight Eisenhower (not sure if he would have ran again, or if his health would have permitted a third term)
Ronald Reagan (Not sure how his Alzheimers would have come into play)
Bill Clinton (Popular at the end of his presidency and would have certainly beat Dubya in 2000 sparing the nation the election fiasco)

 

[Atreus]

I suspect we will not see to much difference. Eisenhower was rather frail when the 1960 elections came around. He might win if he ran, but maybe not. And I would think that he would chose to not go for the presidency if he was in a poor condition (similar to why cheney hasn't run), and that a ageing president would lose votes. reagan could win, and his term would look suspiciously like Bush senior's. But come the 1992 elections, which he may contest, the economy will be slowing down, his health would be fading, and the people would probably elect Clinton. CLinton vs. Bush jr. Something tells me Clinton gets a third term. He probably manages things better then Bush.

 

[Bulldawg85]

Washington

One of the reasons that they chose 2 terms as the limit was because that was how long Washington served and until FDR it was more or less traditional for a president to serve no more than that and no one else had seriously tried to do so.

 

[Atreus]

One of the reasons that they chose 2 terms as the limit was because that was how long Washington served and until FDR it was more or less traditional for a president to serve no more than that and no one else had seriously tried to do so.

A few did try, I think. Nobody succeeded, though.

 

[David S Poepoe]

A few did try, I think. Nobody succeeded, though.

U.S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt could have or would have served more than the 'traditional' two terms if things had worked out different or one had kept his mouth shut.

Clinton probably could have gotten a third term, but I believe it would have been a worse repeat of his second. There are few presidents that survive eight years without wearing out their welcome either with the public or Congress. I think what would have been 'the gauntlet' for his third term would have been his reelection campaign and how much more closely he would be under scrutiny by the press. A third term may have sealed any possibility of Hillary being seriously considered presidential material.

 

[Nicomacheus]

A third term might have been chosen to maintain the electoral incentive for good performance in a President's 2nd term. As it stands today, two-term Presidents are lame ducks for at least half their second term. They spend much of it "seeking a legacy." If they had the ability to seek another term, perhaps they'd get more done and/or remain more responsive to the public.

The tradition from Washington and the sheer exhaustion of being President and the inevitable pendulum of politics would ensure that few Presidents actually served 3 terms, but the potential of a third term might enliven contests that otherwise appear perfunctory. The huge field of candidates in some primaries might be winnowed if the President continued to control the beginning of the electoral season in his second term.

Similarly, in a President's re-election campaign, he usually runs on a very similar platform with a very similar coaltion behind him. The potenital for longer incumbency might enable a President to change tacks and garner different sources of support. Indeed, the spectre of a third term might invigorate re-election campaigns for a second. Under current law, ambitious candidates sometime wait 4 year for an "open" race. An oppoisition Party has more reason to try to find a good candidate rather than wait for 12 years. The party in power will also have more open primary races because ambitious people in that Party will either challenge the sitting President or force concessions from him.

A good rotation in offices aside, it takes about 18 months for most Presidents to learn their main task (foreign policy), a third term with the ability to change tack allows the retention of talent. Accordingly, perhaps 3 was chosen because that was how long FDR ended up serving (a few months in his fourth before he died) and how long FDR was needed (for the Depression and the for WWII). It also might have been chosen as a better alternative than 2 terms or 10 years: TR couldn't have run for a third term in 1908 nor 1912 under the 22nd Ammendment. While he decided not to 1908 because of his 1904 promise and failed in 1912, he was a good candidate both times. Why limit a successful VP to 10 years, particularly if at times the formula would have him serves less than a "normal" eight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All of the above are also reasons to oppose the adoption of the 22nd Ammendment altogether.

 

[Derek Jackson]

I am personally opposed to term limits. I think the qualification for an electoral office is basically the capacity to win an election.

I rather suspect that an amendment limiting a President to 3 terms would make it MORE likely that Clinton and Reagan would have run in 2000 and 1988 than no amendment at all.

There would be two political consequences:

1) At some point someone would have to decide about the incapacity provisions on the 25th amendment because of Reagan.

2) What would happen with Clinton and September 11. I believe that he was more of a detail person than GW Bush. It is possible he would have prevented it. If he did not the Republicans would have blaimed him for the outrage.

Clinton would NOT have gone to war with Iraq.

 

[tarrant77]

Two other altered 22nd amendments:

1. It is declared null and void during an actual state of war(that was declared by congress, not just a "military action" that presidents seem to love since wwii). It comes back in effect as soon as a peace treaty or a declaration by congress stating so (say 2/3rds majority or something)

this is the more interesting one though in my mind:

2. A president is only allowed two consecutive terms in office. After a stated period (be it 4 or 8 years) they may run again. At the time of its passage it wouldn't have made much difference, but now, as ppl stay active in politics alot longer, I could see someone like Bill Clinton running again now if allowed. Or GWB in 8 years hence(not that I could see it happening though)

thoughts?

 

[David S Poepoe]

Two other altered 22nd amendments:

1. It is declared null and void during an actual state of war(that was declared by congress, not just a "military action" that presidents seem to love since wwii). It comes back in effect as soon as a peace treaty or a declaration by congress stating so (say 2/3rds majority or something)

Don't quite think that will work. There are no other amendments that can be changed by the will of the Congress. It should either all or nothing.

 

[Nicomacheus]

Two other altered 22nd amendments:

1. It is declared null and void during an actual state of war(that was declared by congress, not just a "military action" that presidents seem to love since wwii). It comes back in effect as soon as a peace treaty or a declaration by congress stating so (say 2/3rds majority or something)

Dangerous given the almost continuous state of war of the 20th century. US Presidents could argue that Congressional authorization of funds for "aggressive/active" military opertaions constitutes a declaration of war. They have OTL.

2. A president is only allowed two consecutive terms in office. After a stated period (be it 4 or 8 years) they may run again. At the time of its passage it wouldn't have made much difference, but now, as ppl stay active in politics alot longer, I could see someone like Bill Clinton running again now if allowed. Or GWB in 8 years hence(not that I could see it happening though)

I doubt this would be chosen in the 1950s. Then Presidents tended not to live to long after they left office. Remember JFK created such a stir becuase he was so young. Also, the ammendment was also crafted in the after math of TR's potential to have held office for more than 2 terms and FDR's actually having done so. TR would have done so non-consecutively so this probably wouldn't fly.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Two other altered 22nd amendments:

1. It is declared null and void during an actual state of war(that was declared by congress, not just a "military action" that presidents seem to love since wwii). It comes back in effect as soon as a peace treaty or a declaration by congress stating so (say 2/3rds majority or something)

If that was the situation I wonder if GW Bush might have formerly asked Congress to formally declare war either on Al Quada or, - and he would have got away with this in 02 or 03, "terror".