Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler
Let us not forget that true history shows that as soon as FDR lost the oval office, the people made sure there was term limits in the top executive position. If he was that loved, why on earth would they do that?
|
If he was that hated why on earth did they elect him to four terms? Two other Presidents tried to be elected to a third term and were not re-elected. Could it be that the electorate might actually have liked FDR a little?
Your slightly biased analysis fails to mention that the call for presidential term limits did not begin with FDR.
The original Articles of Confederation included term limits for delegates and a presidential term limit was a hotly debated topic in the Constitutional Convention. The subject then proved a major sticking point during the ratification debates with Hamilton having to address it on two separate occasions in the Federalist Papers (see nos. 69 and 72).
Washington and Jefferson quelled the debate slightly when they rejected a third term, but Grant re-ignited it by taking a third run at the office. At that point Congress spoke up and the House adopted the Springer Resolution which stated "(t)hat in the opinion of this House the precedent established by Washington and other Presidents of the United States, in retiring from the Presidential office after their second term, has become, by universal concurrence, a part of our republican system of government, and that any departure from this time-honored custom would be unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to our free institutions." Grant was not re-elected and the Springer Resolution - although certainly not binding law - was pointed to as a demonstrative interpretation of the Constitution from that day forward.
Even so, the debate didn't end. In the 160 years between the original ratification of the Constitution and the adoption of the Twenty-Second Amendment there were nearly 300 proposals submitted in Congress to add a presidential term limit. By the time FDR was elected to his
first term the proposals were averaging three per year. The call for a change was hardly the result of FDR.
You also don't bother to mention that the ratification process for Amendment XXII was highly politicized as well. The Republicans took control of both houses in the 1946 elections and pushed through the Amendment on the very first day on the new Congress. The Republican Speaker of the House then limited debate on the act to just two hours over Democratic objections and the proposal was rammed through on a party-line vote. Debate was more extensive in the Senate but it still split on party lines. It then went out to the states where Republican dominated legislatures ratified it quickly while Democratic controlled states held back. It took six years for ratification to finalize in the states with most of the state legislatures voting to approve being in the hands of the Republicans. "The people" didn't adopt this amendment - the Republican party did.
So Amendment XXII didn't start with FDR. It wasn't an overwhelming outpouring of term limit support from "the people". It sure as hell had nothing to do with the populace turning on one of the most popular and beloved Presidents in our history whom they elected by 432 electoral votes to 99 just before the Amendment was proposed.
The Twenty-Second Amendment came about after 160 years of continuous debate and a partisan shove by a political party pissed that it had been locked out of the White House for almost two decades. It's nowhere near the "true history" story you tell about it.
Quote:
|
His, FDR, battles with the Supreme Court are never talked about any longer and a lot of people have no clue that a lot of his legislation was found unconstitutional.
|
Well it's sure talked about at law schools a lot. In fact, I spent a whole damn semester talking about it.
Isn't it interesting, though, that in the eyes of some people the courts are "judicial activists" when they strike down the acts of a conservative president but when they turn away the acts of a liberal one it's a demonstration of a defective presidency? Seems like just more of the usual cherry picking with the facts.
Cheers,
Mazo.
