Obama's chances of third term reduced!

[Luckymoose]

I will say that FDR was a horrible president. Hoover got screwed.

 

[Antilogic]

FDR is the only president to have served more than 2 terms. Prior to FDR it was an understanding among politicians that you don't serve more than 2 terms as Washington famously refused to stand again after his second term. Some presidents tried to weasel around this precedent, notably Teddy Roosevelt who justified standing for a 3rd term by running on a 3rd party ticket.

After FDR's death a constitutional amendment was passed formally restricting maximum time in office to two terms. So the chances of Obama getting a 3rd term are nil.

The other argument Teddy Roosevelt had was that he was only elected president once--he took over after McKinley's assassination in 1901. This case is also addressed in the Amendment, enabling a president to serve out a minority of a former president's term as well as be elected twice, putting a theoretical cap on the number of years as president just shy of 10 years. Theoretically, Truman (and I think I read LBJ, would have to double-check the years to make sure it was true) could have run for subsequent terms but chose not to due to low approval ratings at the end of their final terms.



...and at the rest.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Truman was not covered by the 22nd ammendment, it was written so as not to include the sitting president.

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 of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

So he could have technically have run for another term in '52. He actually started to but lost the New Hampshire primary and backed out. LBJ was eligable for a second full term but chose not to run. He announcement to not run in order to focus on Vietnam is a decently famous telecast.


Link to video.

The only president who could have served more than eight years was Lyndon B. Johnson.[10][11] He became President in 1963 when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, served the final 14 months (less than two years) of Kennedy's term, was elected president in 1964, and could have been re-elected in 1968 but chose to withdraw from the race

______
Here is the list of Presidents who tried (and failed) to run for a third term:

Prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt, few Presidents attempted to serve for more than two terms. Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in 1880 after serving from 1869 to 1877, but narrowly lost his party's nomination to James Garfield. Grover Cleveland tried to serve a third term (and second consecutive term) in 1896, but did not have enough support in the wake of the Panic of 1893. Cleveland lost support to the Silverites led by William Jennings Bryan, and declined to head the Gold Democrat ticket, though he did endorse the Gold Democrats. Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency upon William McKinley's assassination and was elected in 1904 to a full term himself, serving from 1901 to 1909. He sought to be elected to a (non-consecutive) term in 1912 but lost to Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson himself tried to get a third term in 1920, by deadlocking the convention. Wilson deliberately blocked the nomination of his Secretary of the Treasury and son-in-law, William Gibbs McAdoo. However, Wilson was too unpopular even within his own party at the time, and James M. Cox was nominated. In 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the only president to be elected to a third term; supporters cited the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, he won a fourth term, but suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died in office the following year. Thus, Roosevelt was the only President to have served more than two terms.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Some presidents tried to weasel around this precedent, notably Teddy Roosevelt who justified standing for a 3rd term by running on a 3rd party ticket.

TR's 1912 run was "legit" in traditional terms, because he had only been elected President once. His "first term" resulted from McKinley's assassination in 1901. Of course, he said in 1908 that he would consider the 1901-3 period to be his first term, and thus not seek reelection, so he backtracked on his own ruling by performing the 1912 stunt that delivered the presidency to Wilson.

 

[Cutlass]

It was the liberal FDR who found justification to ignore tradition relative to standing for a third term.

We hear on a daily basis liberal demands to scrap the constitution, demands for Obama to defy the Constitution and or Congress. We have unsustainable debt and the big banks are out of control. Another serious recession is quite possible. Any number of scenarios can be presented in which Obama might not fade away.

There is certainly a non zero chance that a hidden socialist cabal within the vast Federal structure used brain control on the Sandy Hook shooter, or that the self same cabal could be planning to frame a right wing group by detonating a nuclear device in a US city in say, 2015. Giving Obama excuse to declare martial law and suspend elections.

The issue isn't if the socialists are going to try and seize the country. Its only a question of when and how?

There aren't enough socialists in the government to fill a phone booth.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I can't stop facepalming at the lack of understanding of the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution.

Spoiler :

Of course, I'm referring to the amendment that placed in a two term limit for presidents.

Is there anything to prevent Obama (or any president in his/her 2nd term) from sitting out the next election, then running again after that?

Sometimes I wish Canada had term limits. It's great if the Prime Minister is a decent, intelligent individual, with good diplomatic skills and who has the best interests of the country at heart. But it's not great if this isn't so - like the situation we have now. In theory, Stephen Harper could go on being Prime Minister for the rest of his life, unless there's an age limit (not sure if the PM has a mandatory retirement age).

 

[Zelig]

Any legislative limits on who can become head of government are an affront to democracy.

 

[Core Imposter]

Any legislative limits on who can become head of government are an affront to democracy.

So sayeth the mob.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Is there anything to prevent Obama (or any president in his/her 2nd term) from sitting out the next election, then running again after that?

Yes. It's two terms, for as long as you live.

There's some other fine print, like about when a "first term" begins if someone begins their presidential tenure as a VP, and rises to the office due to the death of the sitting president, but that's basically the point. Here's the complete text of the amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A great principle, which should be applied to the other two branches of government.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Obama could be Hillary's VP running mate in 2016, and if she dies in office he could serve out the remainder of her term. I think people would then speak of that time as his third term in office. So the chances of him having a third term aren't technically nil.

The chances of the above happening strike me, though, as nil.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

And you thought that Obama was going to defy the Constitution and have a 3rd term.... Then what's the 22nd amendment then? Mr. Cooper, no offense, but I think that you are really paranoid and sound crazy. But, each to his own I suppose.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Jesus Christ in heaven. It's just like the Bush years where liberals were ranting that Bush would set himself up as dictator for life by abolishing the 22nd amendment or that he's really the anti-Christ...

How many liberals would that have been?

And how is it anywhere comparable to suggesting that the Sandy Hook shooter was a Manchurian candidate, or that the Democrats would explode a nuclear weapon in a US city and claim the conservatives did it to institute tyrannical rule?

There aren't enough socialists in the government to fill a phone booth.

How do we really know until we have another McCarthy witch hunt?

 

[Gucumatz]

Hes not crazy, but rather misguided.

That being said odds for a 3rd term are never "0%" but I would put it at less than 0.01%. We aren't talking about Emperor Palpatine here no matter how the Republicans wish he was (And if he really was, they wouldn't be wishing it)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Obama could be Hillary's VP running mate in 2016, and if she dies in office he could serve out the remainder of her term. I think people would then speak of that time as his third term in office. So the chances of him having a third term aren't technically nil.

The chances of the above happening strike me, though, as nil.

The 22nd amendment rules this possibility IIRC. If it wasn't the amendment, then it was another for sure. I remember reading about it.

Cheezy, sometimes I agree that this amendment should cover other offices. However, I do feel that having senators and reps in for multiple terms helps them form relationships that facilitate deal making. Unfortunately, this hasn't been working out so great lately.

 

[Leonel]

How many liberals would that have been?

And how is it anywhere comparable to suggesting that the Sandy Hook shooter was a Manchurian candidate, or that the Democrats would explode a nuclear weapon in a US city and claim the conservatives did it to institute tyrannical rule?

How do we really know until we have another McCarthy witch hunt?

Oh there were quite a few. I recall it was even a newspaper story for the Seattle Weekly.

I suppose it would be comparable that both instances are absolutely ridiculous and ignoring of reality and that people who genuinely believe in that ought to be ridiculed out of regular society.

 

[RobAnybody]

This is devastating news! I had already sent in my early voting ballot for Obama 2016. I am sad ---> See? See how sad I am?

 

[Gucumatz]

Truman was not covered by the 22nd ammendment, it was written so as not to include the sitting president.



So he could have technically have run for another term in '52. He actually started to but lost the New Hampshire primary and backed out. LBJ was eligable for a second full term but chose not to run. He announcement to not run in order to focus on Vietnam is a decently famous telecast.


Link to video.

As a historical fan of Lyndon Johnson and as an inspiration to me, I am almost ready to cry every time I see that video.

LBJ did try and achieve peace much more than people realized. Sadly at the end his party's betrayal and the mood of the American people (although I am 100% sure he could have been re-elected) finished him. He ended up believing that Nixon was trying to stop the peace process and wrote countless documents (now in the LBJ library) fearing that Republicans were going behind the scenes and urging Vietnamese leaders to delay peace talks. It got a point he just wanted to take the whole thing to the media (while still as president) - but he decided to give Humphrey and Nixon their fair shake.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Well, if he can do an executive order to override the 2nd amendment, doing an executive order to give him a 3rd term seems easy after that. I mean, if he takes your guns, who's going to stop him?

Right? Right?

A military coup ?

 

[AdamCrock]

He is not yet (or at least I think so) in for a second term and You guys think of a third term ?! In the office ?! He's not Putin Ya know Awright let's estamblish monarchy and let's be done with it xD Americans never fail to make my day ^^ <3

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh there were quite a few. I recall it was even a newspaper story for the Seattle Weekly.

I suppose it would be comparable that both instances are absolutely ridiculous and ignoring of reality and that people who genuinely believe in that ought to be ridiculed out of regular society.

There is quite a bit of difference between "liberals" and "a handful of wacky liberals that a weekly newspaper in Seattle mentioned".