Term limits Q - not political

We have this really cool music venue here in Fort Worth. It is a local upscale grocery store that has a huge patio and they bring in local bands Thurs., Fri., & Saturday nites from spring to fall. They have some really cool bands and it attracts quite an eclectic crowd. We liken it to the diversity of people you see on Sesame Street. We've become friends with people we'd never have even met before.

So anyway a group of us were hanging out and discussing just about anything and everything when we discovered a pocket democrat in our midsts - and the wailing began. One of the issues was how the middle east likes Obama because they think he'll be good to them. This lead into how if any of our enemies don't like our policies or stance all they have to do is wait a maximum of 8 years (which is an eyeblink to many of these ideoligies) to get another leader and viewpoint. We all agreed that's the downside to term limits, of course the upside is no dictators or monarchies developing.

What none of us could remember is WHAT event triggered term limits.

We think it was FDR that sat for 3 terms and we all thought history treated him as a rather good pres, but there must have been something in his 3rd term that prompted the passage of the 2 term limit. Does anyone know what it was?

Nearly half a century prior to the term limits movement of the 1990s, the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to a fourth consecutive term, and his sudden death a few months later, gave rise to a successful move in Congress to restore the two-term tradition in the Presidency. As ratified in 1951, the Twenty-Second Amendment states that "no person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice..."

Linky

4 terms! We thought it was only 3 terms. But still what caused them to suddenly decide that 2 terms was the proper amount?

Was there a deciding factor? I can't see his death as THE factor.

It was interesting to read about the attempt at term limits on Congress. That's where it's needed the most.

carguy123 wrote: 4 terms! We thought it was only 3 terms. But still what caused them to suddenly decide that 2 terms was the proper amount? Was there a deciding factor? I can't see his death as THE factor. Maybe it was just an idea who's time had come. It was interesting to read about the attempt at term limits on Congress. That's where it's needed the most.

I think FDR was the anomaly. The two term idea has been around since the revolution.

Linky

George Washington could have been elected to a third term, but declined it, suggesting two terms of four years were enough for any president. In 1797, he quietly returned to Mount Vernon. His two-term example became an unwritten rule in the realm of presidential politics until 1940. That was when Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who steered the nation through the Great Depression of the 1930s, decided he wanted to run again. Newspapers railed against the breach of tradition. His Republican opponent, Wendell Willkie forced the incumbent to run a hard campaign, which Roosevelt won. He then went after, and received, a fourth term in office, explaining that he could not leave the helm at a time he was guiding a nation through the Second World War.

Just months into his fourth term, Roosevelt died and, with him, the idea of unlimited terms for presidents. An amendment, promoted heavily by the Republican party and by others nervous at the idea of a permanent presidency, was passed in 1947. It was ratified by the states four years later. The amendment limits a president to two four-year terms.

Right. Two terms was the tradition. FDR ignored it, and the tradition became law.

Note that because Truman was president when the law took effect he could have run for a third term but declined to do so.

Correct, FDR's fourth term is what triggered term limits legislation by the majority Republican Congress of the time. But the main flaw is that the term limit legislation applies only to the president. There are, AFAIK, no other term limited elected positions.

How the berkeley is this thread "not political"?

You might make a case that it is not partisan, although pejorative statements such as "we discovered a pocket democrat in our midsts - and the wailing began" belie even that claim.

Lots of public offices are structured with term limits - I think the Mayor of New York is working right now to extend his.

Personally I think term limits would be a good idea for congress - get rid of these 'career politicians'. I think public service is something you should do for a set period of time, then go back to private life. These bastards are more focused on the election cycle, preserving their 'job' and their ego than they are on doing what we elected them for.

I believe that the tradition evolved as our founding father's feared that either the country would become too dependent upon a single individual, or that a single individual would become so powerful that a change in leadership would be difficult or impossible. They'd had some bad experiences with kings around that time.

It's not political like it's not a music thread. I was simply recounting the circumstances that started the wondering.

We all thought term limits were a good thing too we were just wondering what calamitous event sparked them. By all I mean the Republicans, as well as the out of the closet Libertarian and the in the closet Democrat. You see, some political events aren't acrimonious.

Wait, bludroptop, would it have made it sexist if some of the people were female or gay?

Take the money out of politics and we will have a lot less politicians.

How do you do that?

Without money (or some sort of compensation package) only the wealthy could afford to be a politician.

carguy123 wrote: How do you do that? Without money (or some sort of compensation package) only the wealthy could afford to be a politician.

In addition to term-limits, how about (in no particular order):

Mandate only public campaign funding for candidates and partys.

Total, public disclosure of the amounts and sources of funding for private party endorsements.

Complete, public disclosure of all proposed bills, laws, amendments, etc., etc. Have them published in plain language (meaning - no legalese E36 M3) before any vote occurs.

No retirement-plan perks.

Compensation based on the national mean average.

Mandatory incarceration for willful violation of the law, fines and expulsion for those too stupid to realize the difference.

Gimme some time and I'll come up with more.

carguy123 wrote: It's not political like it's not a music thread.

It is about politics = it is political. What am I missing?

EDIT: political: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

How is this not about government? Don't get your BVDs in a knot, but in spite of the us vs. them mentality that is so commonplace today, politics refers to the method we employ to govern - not taking sides.