Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Boroda on October 18, 2004, 01:18:25 PM
-
When was the law passed not allowing president to stay for more then 2 times (8 years)?
AFAIR, what they told me at school - it was in late 40-s, during Truman presidency. Am I right?...
-
You are right. I believe it was after Roosevelts 4 terms that they made it law that you can only serve 2 terms.
-
the 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951
-
22nd amendment, March 1947.
-
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by ra
22nd amendment, March 1947.
It was passed in 1947, but I don't believe it had enough state support to be ratified until 1951. My dates may be off.
-
now we NEED to do the same thing with the senate
Incumbants are almost next to impossible to unseat
-
senate and the house, Incumbants have a 96% reelection rate.
that job was originally suposed to be a part time temp job, not a life time career.
-
Originally posted by john9001
senate and the house, Incumbants have a 96% reelection rate.
that job was originally suposed to be a part time temp job, not a life time career.
Do you realize they are just 3.6% away from Sadam's relection bids?
-
There is a difference. Saddam was easier to remove from office.
-
Originally posted by United
You are right. I believe it was after Roosevelts 4 terms that they made it law that you can only serve 2 terms.
I believe FDR served two full terms, elected in 1932 and 1936, and then snuffed it in his third term which he won in 1940.
-
Roosevelt won the 1944 election as well. He passed away in spring 1945, barely into his 4th term.
He probably would have accepted the title of King had someone offered it.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I believe FDR served two full terms, elected in 1932 and 1936, and then snuffed it in his third term which he won in 1940.
No, he actually won a FOURTH term in 1944 and didn't make it through that one. I don't believe that any President before him even attempted to win a 3rd term.
The two-term thing wasn't a law at the time, it was just a tradition established by George Washington until FDR. Washington has been called 'An American Cincinatus (sp)' after an ancient Roman general who returned to his farm and declined to rule after his country called him to war.
Washington himself did become President, but declined taking the role of 'King of America' that many wanted him to have after the end of the Revolution and served two terms as President.
-
The possibility of running for a third term was good to have however. It kept the 'lame duck' status from taking over a president halfway thru his second term.
-
Well... if third terms were allowed, Willy Jeff would still be the president. ;)
Of course, Ronny would have won a third term as well.
-
I wouldn't mind not having a term limit. I can't think of a time in history when a term limit would have been a bad thing....other than Clinton.
If Americans want to vote Bush into office for the next 12 years, who could blame us? :)
-
Well... if third terms were allowed, Willy Jeff would still be the president.
Not necessarily Ronny would have a third term easily. Who knows what would have happened after that. Ole' Willy could still be flashing truck stop potatos in Arkansas.
Term limits haven't made our country better. FDR was a terrible president but the 'people' picked him. In fact every 8 years we are guaranteed to see another upstart running for President claiming he has all new answer to all the new problems.
How great would it be if politicians ran on a platform of 'I will do nothing in the interest of not screwing everything up'.
Every new candidate will try to sell you on the idea of how screwed up the last guy left it and at the same time try and convince you only he can fix it.
The only limits we need are limits set on how long Congress stays in session. Give umm 3 months to do what they gotta do then send home for 9 unless there's an emergency.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... if third terms were allowed, Willy Jeff would still be the president. ;)
Bill (blue dress) Clinton never won a majority of the votes in either of his elections as President. Do you think he's be so lucky a third time?
-
Originally posted by Otto
Bill (blue dress) Clinton never won a majority of the votes in either of his elections as President. Do you think he's be so lucky a third time?
Not sure where YOU live and vote, but in the US Bill Clinton won the majority. 50% of the popular vote in 96 compared to Dole's 42%. In 92 he took 43% compared to GB Sr.'s 37%. You need to quit using that new math.
If I remember correctly, GB Jr. is only the third president to lose the popular election and win the presidency. Both previous times were in the 1800s.
-
For clinton, let me check my figures - but i'm pretty certain when he was getting a hummer every now and then the DOW was way up - so yes - I think there is a correlation. I'd give him a 3rd is only a hummer was required to keep the economy going.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
FDR was a terrible president but the 'people' picked him.
Not sure I agree with you on that Wotan...
My Grandfather (who spent much of his early life living in boxcars, alleys, whatever he could find, terrible poverty, "Angela's Ashes" type story) summed it up pretty well:
"I never liked Reagan because he earned his wealth but then seemed to forget where he came from, but I loved FDR because he was born into his wealth yet devoted his life to working for the poor".
Besides, name another president that actually had someone on his white house staff answer the phone and try to help someone out with their life problems??? Try that today.
Or name one who's been willing to drop one idea of his, admit it didn't work, and try a different idea until one finally does. That's near unthinkable today.
The man was genuinely loved by millions, and is still revered by them today. Go into a convalescent home and ask around. You'll see some dull eyes start shining at the mere mention of his name.
Bottom line is, you aren't adored like that if you're a "terrible" president. You don't make top 3 in numerous books (of course, just opinions but still), if you're "terrible".
You just don't.
-
Roosevelt did more long term damage to America than any other President with his domestic policies.
His appeasement of Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin was treasonous.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Not sure where YOU live and vote, but in the US Bill Clinton won the majority. 50% of the popular vote in 96 compared to Dole's 42%. In 92 he took 43% compared to GB Sr.'s 37%. You need to quit using that new math.
If I remember correctly, GB Jr. is only the third president to lose the popular election and win the presidency. Both previous times were in the 1800s.
You are correct. I should have said that Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote in either election. (in 1996 it was 49%) He did win a majority of all the votes cast in both.
Also, I live outside of Philadelphia and vote there as well.
-
Originally posted by storch
His appeasement of Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin was treasonous.
I'm a Pole. I'll agree with that to an extent. Then again, it's easy to label such things with hindsight... Besides, if appeasing dictators that are for the time being working "with" you, is treasonous, well, our executive branch has a dark history that continues to this day. :rolleyes:
As for his domestics, well, people could eat again. That was a big issue of the day.
"People don't eat in the long run, people eat every day" - Harry Hopkins
(approximate quote might have used slightly different wording, don't have it in front of me).
-
Vudak, Roosevelts policies didn't pull the US out of the depression. Most were feel good messures. I have no interest in having a long discussion but my opinion stands.
Roosevelt and Johnson were the worst Presidents this country has had.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Vudak, Roosevelts policies didn't pull the US out of the depression. Most were feel good messures. I have no interest in having a long discussion but my opinion stands.
Roosevelt and Johnson were the worst Presidents this country has had.
dang wotox!!!! Johnson should have been charged with treason and tried for his mishandling of the execution of the Viet nam conflict. We are still paying for his and Roosevelt's domestic policies today. Can anyone say the "A" word?
If the execution of the Viet Nam conflict had been handled the same way Bush 41 and now Bush 43 are handling their conflicts the results would have been similar to the Iraq conflicts. We would have Ho Chi Ming's scalp hanging outside of our lodge and John Kerry wouldn't have to be embarassed by his collaboration with the enemy.
Easily the two most incompetent men in the oval office in modern times.
-
Also, inconsideration for VP's.
If a President dies before the mid way mark, that is considered one term (assuming he serves the whole way) for the Vice President.
If a president dies after the mid way mark, it is not considered one term for the VP.
Just clarifying, but some handsomehunkes were calling for Bill Clinton to be vice president. He cannot just incase the president dies, putting Clinton into his third term.
-
I think you are wrong there. IIRC the 22nd amendment states the terms may not be consecutive terms He may if he wishes run again.
-
Originally posted by storch
Roosevelt did more long term damage to America than any other President with his domestic policies.
His appeasement of Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin was treasonous.
His friendship with USSR was probably the most important thing he have done.
You have to admit that Soviet money paid for American technology and goods in the 30s really helped to get out of economical crisis.
I wish Russia had a leader like FDR now. Our situation is close to what US had in early-30s. We need a "New deal", but our leaders just make deals between themselves and methodicaly kill what remained from USSR...
-
You have to admit that Soviet money paid for American technology and goods in the 30s really helped to get out of economical crisis.
What?
-
Originally posted by ra
What?
Delusions, why bother?
-
Originally posted by ra
What?
USSR trade with the US in the 30s brought solid gold and millions of jobs. I don't think that as many communist "historians" say it saved US economics, but it was important...
We still have whole automobile factories working here that were bought from the US in the 30s. The tremendous leap that USSR made in the 30s was based on foreign technology, including bought in the US for solid gold.
Next time you'll deny Russian policy towards US during the Independence War and other affairs in your history?... :rolleyes:
-
OK, what percentage of US exports went to the USSR in the 30's? Probably not enough to make a big difference. I'll bet the USSR imported more from the Third Reich in the 1930's than it did from the US.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
When was the law passed not allowing president to stay for more then 2 times (8 years)?
AFAIR, what they told me at school - it was in late 40-s, during Truman presidency. Am I right?...
it is actually 2.5 terms (10 year limit)
If a sitting President leaves office for what ever reason the VP can become President for no more than 2 years of that term and be elected for 2 more terms.
If the VP serves as President even 1 day (minute or second if you want to be picky) over 2 years, he can only be elected 1 more term.
-
Originally posted by storch
I think you are wrong there. IIRC the 22nd amendment states the terms may not be consecutive terms He may if he wishes run again.
Amendment 22
(March 1, 1951)
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office…
-
Originally posted by Otto
You are correct. I should have said that Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote in either election. (in 1996 it was 49%) He did win a majority of all the votes cast in both.
Also, I live outside of Philadelphia and vote there as well.
Sorry then, it sounded like you were trying to say Willy lost the popular election both times and made it in anyway. I dont think he was THAT good. I'm not really sure why it matters that he won 50% of the vote, but.........ok I concede your point. He never won 50%. Unless you want to quibble over 96 if it was 49% or 50%, I've seen it both ways and dont really know which is right.
-
Originally posted by Otto
You are correct. I should have said that Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote in either election. (in 1996 it was 49%) He did win a majority of all the votes cast in both.
1992, 43% Clinton, 37% GHWBush, 19% Perot
Clinton received 44,908,254 of 104,600,366 votes cast.
1996, 49% Clinton, 41% Dole, 8% Perot
Clinton received 47,402,357 of 96,277,634 votes cast.
In order to receive "a majority of all the votes cast in both", Clinton would have had to receive more than 50% of 200,878,000 votes, or at least 100,439,000 votes.
He was 8,128,286 votes short of that bar. Clinton recieved 45.95% (a plurality, not a majority) of the votes cast in both.