President's Day - from PS3 Delay Thread

[Buckle-meister]

It's also a holiday for us Americans. We get to celebrate all of our glorious Presidents.

I can see this thread getting hijacked (sorry Alandamp :o), but you've just reminded me of a question I have about your Presidential system:

Why are US Presidents only allowed to serve two terms? Where did that originate? I mean, it's always struck me as a pity for those Presidents that happen to do not bad; you force them to leave when there's the potential for them to do more good. :confused:

[racquetman]

I can see this thread getting hijacked (sorry Alandamp :o), but you've just reminded me of a question I have about your Presidential system:

How dare you?!! This thread was perfectly on track up to this point :confused:

Why are US Presidents only allowed to serve two terms? Where did that originate? I mean, it's always struck me as a pity for those Presidents that happen to do not bad; you force them to leave when there's the potential for them to do more good. :confused:

I don't know the answer, but I think it would be funny if Bush was given a 3rd term. Can you say 2nd American civil war :eek: :eek: :eek:

[gellor]

I can see this thread getting hijacked (sorry Alandamp :o), but you've just reminded me of a question I have about your Presidential system:

Why are US Presidents only allowed to serve two terms? Where did that originate? I mean, it's always struck me as a pity for those Presidents that happen to do not bad; you force them to leave when there's the potential for them to do more good. :confused:

Its been a while, but if I recall correctly, george washington started the tradition. They wanted him to run for additional terms, but he refused, because a president who's allowed to hold office indefinitely was too close to a monarch.

I just found a more thorough description here. (http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20021127amendment_22p9.asp)

[gellor]

How dare you?!! This thread was perfectly on track up to this point :confused:



I don't know the answer, but I think it would be funny if Bush was given a 3rd term. Can you say 2nd American civil war :eek: :eek: :eek:

Fortunately, it won't happen since it violates the constitution. Otherwise, I'd be looking into Canadian citizenship already.

[Buckle-meister]

...if I recall correctly, george washington started the tradition. They wanted him to run for additional terms, but he refused, because a president who's allowed to hold office indefinitely was too close to a monarch.

Cheers Gellor. :)

I understand what you mean with regard to a long term in office being viewed more and more as a monarchy, but I still can't quite see the logic in limiting the number of terms to two. I mean, if a President is bad, the people simply wont vote for him/her.

I am not leading this anywhere by the way. :o

[gellor]

Cheers Gellor. :)

I understand what you mean with regard to a long term in office being viewed more and more as a monarchy, but I still can't quite see the logic in limiting the number of terms to two. I mean, if a President is bad, the people simply wont vote for him/her.

I am not leading this anywhere by the way. :o

G.W.B. managed to get reelected, didn't he? People will vote for "The Devil we know." vs the devil we don't. I mean, when people are elected based on name recognition alone...when ad campaigns are focused around smear tactics rather than issues......you have a system that can be manipulated.

[Buckle-meister]

...you have a system that can be manipulated.

Yes, but that's true for many systems. I like to think that even so, at some point a wrong will be righted. :)

[racquetman]

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a 3rd and 4th term (although he died during the 4th). I think if someone was doing a spectacular job and most agreed, it's not out of the question that something like this could happen again.

[jake51s]

The 22nd amendment of the Constitution was passed after FDR to keep that from happening again.

[racquetman]

The Constitution was amended after FDR to keep that from happening again.

Like I said, that could never happen again :D .

I guess I should have paid more attention in history class, huh?!!

[Buckle-meister]

Thanks for splitting the thread Admin. :)

The 22nd amendment of the Constitution was passed after FDR to keep that from happening again.

Was he a lousy President?

[jaxvon]

No, FDR was generally seen as a good president. While I've never heard any conclusive ideas on why he was elected 4 times, I personally think that people wanted to stick with the man they knew after the Great Depression and the start of WWII. But again, for the above stated reasons, presidents are now limited to two elected terms or a maximum of 10 years in office. Two terms was chosen because George Washington chose to only run for 2 terms in office, and every president after that was elected twice chose to stop running for office (except for Roosevelt).

[Khellandros66]

I don't know the answer, but I think it would be funny if Bush was given a 3rd term. Can you say 2nd American civil war :eek: :eek: :eek:

Considering that you have no clue as to how this country was founded, why it was founded, and the decisions made during its infancy that still hold it together today. I will say that you have alot of nerve claiming there would be another American Civil War if Bush were to stay in office for a 3rd term (Not possible. You should go back to 7th grade and maybe pass this time so you have full understanding of how the American Government really works.)

It truly disgusts me when a bunch of misguided, undereducated liberals repeat exactly what their favored politicians tell them to believe. (remeber there is LIE in believe) They chose this path because it is easier to follow the words of the few then to do the reading and research of the many.

~Bob

[mulester7]

It truly disgusts me when a bunch of misguided, undereducated liberals repeat exactly what their favored politicians tell them to believe.~Bob.....Bob, when I read this, why does Rash Limbaugh come to mind?....do the Democrats have a paid mouthpiece with hours of air time every day?....then again, hey, we all need to get off Dubya's back....bless his heart, he can't even read a speech lying right in front of him....why does anyone think he's making any decisions?.....

[racquetman]

Considering that you have no clue as to how this country was founded, why it was founded, and the decisions made during its infancy that still hold it together today. I will say that you have alot of nerve claiming there would be another American Civil War if Bush were to stay in office for a 3rd term (Not possible. You should go back to 7th grade and maybe pass this time so you have full understanding of how the American Government really works.)

It truly disgusts me when a bunch of misguided, undereducated liberals repeat exactly what their favored politicians tell them to believe. (remeber there is LIE in believe) They chose this path because it is easier to follow the words of the few then to do the reading and research of the many.

~Bob

Hey Bob, lighten up or your head will explode!!

Of course some idiot like you has to come in and ruin the light-heartedness of the thread. The problem with you political people is that you think everyone else is political as well.

Bob, listen carefully. I'm not political. I don't watch or listen to any politicians. My statement was a complete and total joke with no hidden meanings. I'm not a disgruntled Democrat. I have no party affiliation. The fact that you took my statement literally and thought I actually meant it is a reflection on your political blindness and has nothing to do with me. You're really just making yourself look ignorant.

So, Bob, let's summarize. I'm not misguided. I'm certainly not undereducated (I have the student loan bills to prove it). I'm not a liberal. I don't have a favorite politician (they all have their own agenda and certainly could care less about what I want). The 2nd civil war crack has to do with how strongly many people hate Bush (I'm not one of them). I certainly know that Bush could not be elected for a 3rd term.

If you want to talk politics, leave me out of it. If you want to continue bashing me for no particular reason other than taking my post the wrong way, just p.m. me would ya.

[Buckle-meister]

Okaaaaay then. :D

FDR was generally seen as a good president.

It appears to me that a practice became a law because one President didn't want to, nor thought that it was right to, run in office for more than two terms.

Doesn't anybody else think that this law limits the potential of a President? Ignoring any political scandals in peoples' minds, does anybody agree that in principle at least, it'd be better to allow a President an unlimited term in office since the people will simply throw you out if you're no good anyway? If not, what logical argument is there against this?

[masak_aer]

Okaaaaay then. :D



It appears to me that a practice became a law because one President didn't want to, nor thought that it was right to, run in office for more than two terms.

Doesn't anybody else think that this law limits the potential of a President? Ignoring any political scandals in peoples' minds, does anybody agree that in principle at least, it'd be better to allow a President an unlimited term in office since the people will simply throw you out if you're no good anyway? If not, what logical argument is there against this?


No, no president should be allowed for an unlimited term in office. There is no guarantee that he'll stay good forever and not abuse his power just to be in his seat. Take Indonesia, for example. The ex-president there, Soeharto, was in power for 32 years! And it is a democratic country. The people elect their presidents. But he somehow had been able to manipulate the votes, the people and corruptions are everywhere. He was good in the beginning, at least for the first 5-10 years, and U.S. supported him too. He made sure in every possible way that he stayed in power and he turned into a dictator.

Even if you're a good president, doesn't mean the next one isn't good or even better. A good president, IMHO, is the one who can build a sustainable projects that can be passed on to the next one. If the president have projects that only he/she knows how to run, he/she isn't as good as you think. As to why it is 2-terms, I can see that a president have 8 years to prove to his/her that she/he can perform and prepare the foundation for the next one. Ten years is long enough for me to achieve several if not all goals set during the campaign. It is also feared that if the presidential terms are unlimited, that he/she will put more efforts in finding ways to secure his/her seat rather than pursuing the national goals.

I think (may not be necessarily right), there are several reasons as to why a president terms should be limited:

1. To avoid unlawful efforts by the current president to stay in power for a long period of time. There have been evidences that this practice is in existence in many countries (including US??). If you abuse your power and influence to stay in the seat, you can only do it twice!
2. To give a chance for the other candidates to prove that he is as good or even better than the last one.
3. To get brighter minds and newer ideas for the country to develop.




Well, that's my opinion anyway. You can challenge it anytime.
:cool:

[Dan]

As said earlier, Washington started the concept voluntarily to avoid the lifetime monarchy style government we rebelled against in the first place. This was a very noble thing he did since no one would ever have dreamt to run run against him. The two party system was still forming.

So now to twist this thread in a new direction, how about your five best and worst presidents?

Best: Lincoln, Washington, both Roosevelts and... James Polk who oversaw the largest increase in the area of the US of any president. OK, it was a shameless land grab from Mexico and led rather directly to the civil war but tell me that California, Texas, and the other states we got out of it aren't much the better for it.

Worst: Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, WH Harrison and Nixon.

[Swerd]

As a follow up to Dan... All presidents after Washington voluntarily followed the volunteer 2-term limit until FDR in 1940. It was a crisis year with war breaking out in Europe and little Republican opposition. After winning control of Congress in 1948, Republicans, still smarting after their long string of losses to Roosevelt, managed to ammend the Constitution, making it law that no president may serve more than 2 terms. There was talk in 1988 by Republicans to find a way to allow Reagan to have a 3rd term, but it never went anywhere. It's probably a good thing because most presidents who are elected to two terms, have much less success during their 2nd term. Lincoln is the only exception I can think of. All their success usually occured in their 1st terms. They often endured political setbacks or major scandals that rendered them lame ducks during their 2nd terms. For example: Korean War for Truman, Vietnam for LBJ, Vietnam & Watergate for Nixon, Iran/Contra for Reagan, Monica Lewinsky for Clinton, and Failure to find bin Laden/Weapons of Mass Destruction/Valerie Plame leak/Social Security "reform"/FEMA failure during Hurricane Katrina/growing scandal over Abramof fundraising & lobbying (pick one) for W.

Five Best
OK Lincoln, Washington, both Roosevelts are good choices, but James Polk?!? Maybe that's a good reason to include Polk on both lists. How about Harry Truman instead of Polk? How about Lyndon Johnson on both lists? He passed the Civil Rights Ammendment and got us mired in Vietnam.

Five Worst
Thats hardly fair to WH Harrison - he died less than a month after his inauguration. I suggest Rutherford B. Hayes or Calvin Coolidge be added to the Worst list.

[aarond]

It's probably a good thing because most presidents who are elected to two terms, have much less success during their 2nd term. Lincoln is the only exception I can think of.

What success did Lincoln have his second term?
It only lasted 42 days
He was inaugurated March 4, 1865
Lee surrendered April 9,1865
Shot by Booth April 14,1865
Dies april 15,1865

[majorloser]

Okaaaaay then. :D



It appears to me that a practice became a law because one President didn't want to, nor thought that it was right to, run in office for more than two terms.

Doesn't anybody else think that this law limits the potential of a President? Ignoring any political scandals in peoples' minds, does anybody agree that in principle at least, it'd be better to allow a President an unlimited term in office since the people will simply throw you out if you're no good anyway? If not, what logical argument is there against this?


Well, to be honest, the most powerful thing a US president gets to do is appoint members to the Supreme Court. There is no term limit for Supreme Court justices. They serve till they die or resign. This does not happen durring every President's term of office. These justices can change the face of US policy and direction very easily if the majority view changes with new members.

Our Constitution has been amended to prevent major abuse of power from any branch of the government. A President can't declare war or even deploy troops for any extended period. Only Congress can do that.

[gellor]

As said earlier, Washington started the concept voluntarily to avoid the lifetime monarchy style government we rebelled against in the first place. This was a very noble thing he did since no one would ever have dreamt to run run against him. The two party system was still forming.

So now to twist this thread in a new direction, how about your five best and worst presidents?

Best: Lincoln, Washington, both Roosevelts and... James Polk who oversaw the largest increase in the area of the US of any president. OK, it was a shameless land grab from Mexico and led rather directly to the civil war but tell me that California, Texas, and the other states we got out of it aren't much the better for it.

Worst: Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, WH Harrison and Nixon.

Texas is a state? Gosh durnit! When did that happen?! And why did no one tell us?

[sjdgpt]

Technically LBJ never had a second term. The second term was his first full term and he was running for re-election but decided against the campaign.


I also nominate LBJ as one of the great 5. And I don't support many of LBJ's policies or practices. But his Civil Rights efforts will be remembered by generations to come.

And that is what makes somebody great. Generations remember his efforts.


I would take George Washington off the list. He was not a great general (lucky, location and a French Fleet), and his Presidential skills and idea's are not particularly noteworthy. Can anybody name one or two of his presidential efforts?


My list:

Lincoln
FDR
LBJ
Woodrow Wilson
Andrew Jackson

[Swerd]

What success did Lincoln have his second term?
It only lasted 42 daysTechnically, you're right. I was forgetting that inaugurations used to take place in March, and thinking that since his reelection the previous November (which was by no means guaranteed) he saw his strategy to win the war succeed.

[Buckle-meister]

...the most powerful thing a US president gets to do is appoint members to the Supreme Court. There is no term limit for Supreme Court justices. They serve till they die or resign. This does not happen durring every President's term of office. These justices can change the face of US policy and direction very easily if the majority view changes with new members.

Our Constitution has been amended to prevent major abuse of power from any branch of the government. A President can't declare war or even deploy troops for any extended period. Only Congress can do that.

So do you think that Presidents, whilst being constrained to two terms themselves, appoint Justices so that the nation is shaped in a direction more of their choosing after they've gone?

[majorloser]

So do you think that Presidents, whilst being constrained to two terms themselves, appoint Justices so that the nation is shaped in a direction more of their choosing after they've gone?


The US Supreme Court has shaped and reshaped this country many time in the past. Whereas members of Congress and the Executive Branch change with the election cycle, the Supreme Court can stay the same for many years. Only Congress can pass a law. The President can only approve (or veto) laws. He does have the ability to enact "Presidential Directives and Executive Orders". These directives remain in effect unless a successor overturns them or Congress overrules them.

But the final interpretation of all laws and directives in this country is made by the Supreme Court. Nine individuals have the final say in this country. And they don't have to be elected. We allow individuals that we elected to appoint them.

I'm not an attorney and I'm sure somebody else out there will chime in but there have been many cases in our history where the Supreme Court has changed this country.

To answer your question: YES! The Supreme Court is one of the legacies of the President. Good or bad. Presidents pick indiviuals that support policy and issues important to the President's political party. Roe vs. Wade (abortion) and the Second Amendment come to mind.

[Buckle-meister]

...the final interpretation of all laws and directives in this country is made by the Supreme Court. Nine individuals have the final say in this country. And they don't have to be elected. We allow individuals that we elected to appoint them.

So, if I understand things correctly, you only allow Presidents to stay in office a maximum of two terms so as to prevent the perception of there being a monarchy, the reasoning being that nobody should have so much authority over such a long period of time, yet you permit the President to elect persons with greater authority than he/she (political correctness and all that :rolleyes: ) has him/herself and who have ultimate authority for typically, a very long period of time. :eek:

Does that just about sum it up? :)

[majorloser]

So, if I understand things correctly, you only allow Presidents to stay in office a maximum of two terms so as to prevent the perception of there being a monarchy, the reasoning being that nobody should have so much authority over such a long period of time, yet you permit the President to elect persons with greater authority than he/she (political correctness and all that :rolleyes: ) has him/herself and who have ultimate authority for typically, a very long period of time. :eek:

Does that just about sum it up? :)

Well, Congress does have to approve his appointments.

Two branches of government are elected "by the masses" (let's not get into the Electoral College debate) and the third branch of the government is appointed by one and approved by the other.

Yes, I know, it's weird but it works for the most part.