Monday, 6 April 2009

United States Presidential Term Limits

Reading about former United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I was confused to read that he was elected to the office of President four times. It appears that a limit of two terms was only a norm.

That is, until the 22nd Amendment passed Congress on March 21, 1947, enshrining the two term limit in the US Constitution. 

Given the Founders' suspicion of power, it is surprising that they never thought to place a term limit on the Presidency - or perhaps none was needed. FDR's case was unique: he was elected in 1932 - during the Great Depression - then reelected in 1936. In 1940, given that war had broken out in Europe, the Democrats decided to stay with FDR given his leadership during the Great Depression.  And so he was reelected in 1940.  In 1944, FDR ran for a fourth term and was reelected, the public clearly not wanting to change leadership during the war.
 
If there were no Presidential term limits in the US, do you think a President could be reelected for a third term? Would this necessarily be a bad thing, a threat to democracy, or would the  system of checks and balances safeguard democracy?

For surely an unpopular President would not make it to a third term, if it were possible.



 

2 comments:

  1. Awesome post as usual Amir.

    Could a president be elected for a fourth term?
    Fo shizzle, just ask disabled bowler hating Obama. He is in with a shot at the moment (I say, with him four months into his first term)

    The biggest issue I could see in the USA with a third term is with the Supreme Court. As the president gets to choose them, a president in for a long time could effectively replace all the old men as they die out with ones that suit his political leanings, and thus making his life rather easy.

    Other then that, is a leader being reelected in free and fair elections, a threat to democracy? I would lean towards, gosh no. Just because it is free and fair elections.

    But a part of me would squeak, gosh yes. Just because a President in charge for a long time has more opportunities to consolidate power, remove opponents in the Civil Service, and generally make the country less democratic. This is even possible within the checks and balances system, as a complete change of the Supreme Court + a couple of threats to national security can provide any president with the ability to undermine democracy.

    Cheerio

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks man.

    Al Gore wrote an excellent book about George W. Bush's tenure as President, called the Assault On Reason.

    Says the publisher on the book: 'A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith has combined with the degration of the public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason.'

    It's an interesting read about the Bush Administration's undermining of democracy.

    ReplyDelete