President's Day - from PS3 Delay Thread

[majorloser]

Okaaaaay then.



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 days

Technically, 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]

Paradox

...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 ) has him/herself and who have ultimate authority for typically, a very long period of time.

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 ) has him/herself and who have ultimate authority for typically, a very long period of time.

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.