Its a common idea in alternate history for the 22nd amendment that created presidential term limited to never come into effect. As most know, the big reason it passed was due to the Republicans controlling congress in the late 40's and basically reacting to FDR being president for so long. Obviously if say Roosevelt were to die before 1940 or even just sat out, there'd be no reason for it. However, if things go like OTL, would there be a reason for the 22nd amendment NOT to pass? It seems like after World War Two, the Republicans were back in power in congress and in most states outside of the south AFAIK, so it was easy to get enough states to ratify it. However, were there any roadblocks to such an amendment that it might not pass, even if FDR still serves a third and fourth term? I feel like the 22nd amendment was always a forgone conclusion once Republicans got in control in congress after FDR. For sure, there were not any Republicans against such term limits from what I've read.
So if FDR wins a third and fourth term, is there any reason why the 22nd amendment DOESN'T pass?
- Thread starter brunohusker
- Start date
Maybe if it had become a “meme” for the 1940s — Why make the President a lame duck for his entire 2nd term?
Yeah, it’s a good idea that a President limit himself, or herself, to 2 terms, and a president who tries otherwise will usually be punished at the polls. But why “hardwire” it in? [please notice how computer analogies so easily leap to my mind!]
Last edited:
This is pretty difficult as even some Democrats were uncomfortable with FDR running 4 terms. That said if someone points out that FDR only ran because of a national emergency (WW2) then maybe the Republicans would back off. So no 22nd amendment. But the whole more than 2 terms thing would be understood as only for a national emergency such as a world war or a pandemic.
And it would need some Democratic help, for I think the Republicans won a majority in 1946, but not a 2/3’s majority.
And to propose a Constitutional Amendment to the States, both the House and Senate must pass it by 2/3’s. And then to ratify the Amendment, the state legislatures of three-fourths of states must pass it by simple majority. This is the normal method, although the Constitution does provide for ratification by state conventions which was used to repeal alcohol prohibition.
* I know you know all this, but some of our international friends might not.
Another way is for someone to forget to include the whole 2 term part of the amendment so the 22nd amendment would only set up the whole line of secession as we know it.
Okay, so we jump to the 25th Amendment on presidential disability? I’m liking this.
25th Amendment
Kind of...the 22nd amendment besides limiting the President to just two terms also set up that the Speaker Of The House was third in line for the Presidency.Okay, so we jump to the 25th Amendment on presidential disability? I’m liking this.
25th Amendment
www.law.cornell.edu
and that the President pro tempore of the Senate is 4th in line.
I think this is federal law, but I do not think it is hardwired in by the Constitution.
22nd Amendment
“ . . But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, . . ”
****************
This is sloppy.
If the goal of the 22nd is prevent the rise of a dictatorship [as if the voting citizens are blithering idiots] , or more realistically, that these things can just happen in large modern societies . . . then why give Harry Truman a pass ? ?
Especially since the 22nd also says, “ . . or acting as President during the remainder of such term . . ” Weirdly, I blame formal writing, and I know that sounds strange. But I think people get frustrated with formal writing and give up before they should.
Maybe it isn't proposed because the Republicans want to use it.
Did they have anybody who they thought had the potential for 3+ terms?
Did they have anybody who they thought had the potential for 3+ terms?
Not in a while. Grant apparently thought he could in 1880 but no one wanted him and it wasn't long until he got sick. Otherwise. Not really before FDR.
And yet not running for a third term was such a tradition that even some Democrats (though not many) simply went against Roosevelt for running for a third term. I feel like for it to not be approved would take a miracle if FDR still runs. Obviously he could just not run, but not only does that make it too easy, but it might create a lot of butterflies and I want to right a timeline about a third Clinton term, but if FDR just says no more, and someone else runs then its quite a different TL.
I meant at the time.
"We don't want to do this because X will run for President in a few years and might go for 3+."
Not unless Dewey would have defeated FDR in 44 and somehow was seen as doing a bang up job. Even then, they'd argue they'd be doing it on principal.
Honest to gosh, I kind of see it as being the opposite with the 22nd Amendment being the outlier event.
Here you have a solid President who steered us through the Great Depression, and he runs for a 3rd term in 1940 when there’s a very serious war in Europe. And now we want to hardwire it in so that solid presidents can’t run for a 3rd term even when there’s a national emergency? ?
It reminds me of the UK who about ten years ago passed a new rule of Parliament that only one vote of “confidence or no confidence” per calendar year. If things get tight, all they’ve succeeded in doing is taking an awkward situation and elevating it to a crisis.
* plus, a beloved ex-president who died in office
How about the 22nd Amendemnt going the ERA route, passing Congress, but failing to meet the 3/4ths state legislatures approval in the required time.
I’ll take that, too.
Frankly, because I think it’s a bad Amendment. It’s biggest downside is that it makes the president a “lame duck” his or her entire 2nd term.
Last edited:
There were Republicans in the 20s/30s who proposed a constitutional amendment making it harder to pass constitutional amendments (after the streak of Progressive-Era amendments). Maybe that gets passed, and thus the will for the 22d amendment isn't there?
You have to prevent the Republicans from winning an overwhelming majority in the 1946 Midterms election that gave them an operational 2\3rds majority that allowed for the 22nd to pass Congress and go to the states for ratification.
In order to do that President Truman had to "Bring the Boys Back Home" much quicker then it did, there was a real anger after V-E Day by the troops in Europe over the possibility of being sent to the Pacific to fight the Japanese.
There were a wave of strikes after the war that caused fear that a Second Great Depression was about to begin, which led to the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act that greatly diminished the power of Labor Unions.
And finally, the war time rationing system has to end quicker as the was a massive pent up demand for consumer goods due to the Great Depression and the need to to meet the demands to fight WW II, and without inflation.
In order to do that President Truman had to "Bring the Boys Back Home" much quicker then it did, there was a real anger after V-E Day by the troops in Europe over the possibility of being sent to the Pacific to fight the Japanese.
There were a wave of strikes after the war that caused fear that a Second Great Depression was about to begin, which led to the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act that greatly diminished the power of Labor Unions.
And finally, the war time rationing system has to end quicker as the was a massive pent up demand for consumer goods due to the Great Depression and the need to to meet the demands to fight WW II, and without inflation.