Quote Originally Posted by mkemse View Post
Presidential term limits are relatively new -- it wasn't until 1951 that the 22nd Amendment was ratified. And there's only been one President who served more than two terms, so was it such a problem that it needed a Constitutional Amendment to fix?

Apparently so or the 22nd Amendment never would have been passed
Right, because things don't get passed for stupid reasons. Like, say, a bunch of idiots wanting to ban alcohol would never be able to get something like that into the Constitution with disastrous results ...

The 22nd Amendment was a knee-jerk reaction to FDR being elected to four terms -- which only came about because of a unique series of events. The Democrats never would have nominated FDR for a third term except for two things: 1) the Republicans had made significant gains in Congress; and 2) World War II was starting. The Democrats felt that FDRs leadership through the Depression would give him an advantage with the threat facing the US. So he won his third term and then his fourth election was during wartime when it's generally been considered a bad idea to change leadership. If it hadn't been for the war, he likely wouldn't have been nominated, much less elected, for even the third term.

But the concept of a four-term President scared the hell out of Congress and they pushed the Amendment through pretty damn quick.

So let's look at something here -- FDR's leadership is generally credited as a significant reason for the Allied victory in WWII. If the 22nd Amendment had been in place prior to 1930, he would have been ineligible to be President during the war. That Amendment has put us in a position where we may not be able to have the best man for the job as President during a time of crisis and may have to change leadership in the middle of a war some day. I'm not sure that's a good thing.