The Purge

[highfigh]

It's amazing that, pretty much from Washington's time in office, the issue of presidential term limits was debated and kicked around; yet, over the course of a century-and-a-half, the framers of the 22nd amendment couldn't make it more precise than this. I mean, they could have just dropped the qualifier "elected". How difficult would it be to include the phrase "under no circumstances"? Or, if there were certain circumstances, they could have been spelled out.

The 22nd wasn't seen as an issue until Roosevelt was in office for four terms. The framers NEVER saw elected government office a a career path, it was usually one or two terms and out. The initial politicians were paid for their expenses, they met occaionally and returned to their homes, to run farms and other businesses. If they were to come back and see the quagmire the US government has become, they would pass out.

Also, at that time and for many elections after, POTUS and VP didn't run as a team, POTUS received the most votes, VP came in second.

All they need to do to make something happen, or not- use the word 'shall' or 'shall not'. That word carries a lot of weight and it was used in the original language- the 2nd Amendment is an easy example where it contains "shall not be infringed". (I only used that because it's easy to remember due to all of the debate, not to start something)

I have heard "The law requires specificity" many times- if language isn't included, lawyers WILL argue for and against it, probably endlessly.

 

[Trell]

The 22nd wasn't seen as an issue until Roosevelt was in office for four terms. The framers NEVER saw elected government office a a career path, it was usually one or two terms and out.

So now now you're cosplaying a historian, unless you got some credible source? I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Broader language was rejected:

>>>By its terms, the Twenty-Second Amendment bars only the election of two-term Presidents, and this prohibition would not prevent someone who had twice been elected President from succeeding to the office after having been elected or appointed Vice President. Broader language providing that no such person shall be chosen or serve as President . . . or be eligible to hold the office was rejected in favor of the Twenty-Second Amendment’s ban merely on election.<<< (emphasis added)

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt22-1/ALDE_00001008/

To my mind it is actually quite clear that "elected" is not an accident and it means what it says. But, who knows what the U.S. Supreme Court would say.

If it wasn't an accident - and I have no reason to argue that it was - it was a deliberate choice to allow for future gaming of a presidential election.

 

[Trell]

If it wasn't an accident - and I have no reason to argue that it was - it was a deliberate choice to allow for future gaming of a presidential election.

I dunno what their reason were for this vagueness, but the damage is done, and USA and the rest of the world have to suffer the consequences.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The 22nd wasn't seen as an issue until Roosevelt was in office for four terms. The framers NEVER saw elected government office a a career path, it was usually one or two terms and out. The initial politicians were paid for their expenses, they met occaionally and returned to their homes, to run farms and other businesses. If they were to come back and see the quagmire the US government has become, they would pass out.

Also, at that time and for many elections after, POTUS and VP didn't run as a team, POTUS received the most votes, VP came in second.

All they need to do to make something happen, or not- use the word 'shall' or 'shall not'. That word carries a lot of weight and it was used in the original language- the 2nd Amendment is an easy example where it contains "shall not be infringed". (I only used that because it's easy to remember due to all of the debate, not to start something)

I have heard "The law requires specificity" many times- if language isn't included, lawyers WILL argue for and against it, probably endlessly.

But, the precision of the 2nd amendment clause "shall not be infringed" is preceded by imprecise clauses - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - leading to the almost continuous arguing we see today.

 

[Trell]

But, the precision of the 2nd amendment clause "shall not be infringed" is preceded by imprecise clauses - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - leading to the almost continuous arguing we see today.

Well, until the the "conservatives" in the Supreme Court began cosplaying historians and promote intellectually dishonest legal theories.

 

[highfigh]

But, the precision of the 2nd amendment clause "shall not be infringed" is preceded by imprecise clauses - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - leading to the almost continuous arguing we see today.

I think "being necessary to the security of a free State" is the main point. Even so-called 'gun free' countries that are considered 'free' have guns in the hands of some citizens. The governments that outlaw them completely aren't in free countries.

Since languages evolve, we see "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." following "being necessary to the security of a free State" as awkward.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for protection, shall not be infringed.”- adding 'and' & 'for protection' changes it to something that I believe many people infer as the meaning, but even that wouldn't bring total agreement across the population.

Even if it had been written that way, it doesn't matter since people can't stop being violent.

If addressing mental health care could be improved in sustantial ways, it would go a long way to help a lot of problems.