A couple of political questions for Americans
- Thread starter Weevil
- Start date
stargazer76
Struck by Lightning
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Posts
- 1,597
1) In the middle of a war, would you really want to sit there and wonder if your president has stronger ties to a country other than your own?
2) Would you really want any of these yahoos to have the potential to run the country for any longer than 2 terms?
2) Would you really want any of these yahoos to have the potential to run the country for any longer than 2 terms?
The_old_man
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Posts
- 916
1) What the deal with the "You have to be born in the US to be president" thing?
This was writen into the constitution at a time when "Foreign" rule was still fresh in the minds of the formers.
2) What's the deal with the two term thing?
That is the result of F.D.R. and the Democrats being in office from 1932 to 1945. Four consecutive terms for the same man, who became senile while in office, left a very bad after-taste in the Republican Party. The Two Term limit was the result.
This was writen into the constitution at a time when "Foreign" rule was still fresh in the minds of the formers.
2) What's the deal with the two term thing?
That is the result of F.D.R. and the Democrats being in office from 1932 to 1945. Four consecutive terms for the same man, who became senile while in office, left a very bad after-taste in the Republican Party. The Two Term limit was the result.
I'm not American and I would assume that anyone running for president would probably feel the strongest ties to AMERICA.
Secondly, I always figured that the voting public was smart enough to decide who got to be president by themselves. If they wanted to give a guy a third term they could, If they didn't then they wouldn't.
Secondly, I always figured that the voting public was smart enough to decide who got to be president by themselves. If they wanted to give a guy a third term they could, If they didn't then they wouldn't.
stargazer76
Struck by Lightning
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Posts
- 1,597
Well, you could probably assume so, but I can imagine some scenarios in which that wouldn't entirely be the case.
The problem with that logic is that sometimes the will of the people is not heard. If the popular vote always won elections, Bush wouldn't be in office right now.
The problem with that logic is that sometimes the will of the people is not heard. If the popular vote always won elections, Bush wouldn't be in office right now.
The_old_man
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Posts
- 916
The Korian "Police Action" and , indirectly, the Vet Nam actions were also part or F.D.R.'s senility. Rather than demanding 'All or Nothing' governments of Germany and the former Japan conquests, he aqueesed to partition of those nations.
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
EBW said:
I see it as one manifestion of our nation's long history of ambivalence with democracy. The founding fathers viewed the voting public as being simultaneously a check against tyranny and a potential source of tyranny. De Toqueville, who studied the American political system extensively from an outsider's perspective, has some wonderful things to say about this phenomenon. You should check him out.
The philosophy upon which the two-term limit is founded is essentially summarized by the well-known American aphorism "ours is a nation of laws, not of men." There are obviously ample examples throughout the history of democracy in which a particularly charismatic popular leader has arisen and swayed the voting public while simultaneously persecuting the minority and harming the nation as a whole. The archetypes for this fear are Julius Caesar and Napoleon, both being duly elected in Republics and being wildly popular before causing incredible tumult and strife to their countries. Napoleon of course became a tyrant and led France into a series of devastating wars. Caesar was killed before he could become Emperor, but nevertheless he contributed to the fall of the Roman Republic, a bloody civil war, and the beginning of what was to be a corrupt and decadent empire.
Allegations of tyranny were leveled at FDR (mostly posthumously) because of the internment of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, and for other reasons. Democracies are particularly prone to elect tyrants at moments of great glory and nationalism and the victory in WWII was perhaps America's proudest moment. FDR seemingly could have been elected indefinitely at that time... or at least that was the fear. Perhaps we flashed back to Caesar ambivalent rejection of the emperor's laurel 3 times before his murder.
Congress passed the 22nd amendment limiting Presidential terms just 2 years after FDR's death in 1945 and it was ratified in 1951.
We obviously didn't want an Augustus.
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
On point one, the founders did not want a foreign prince imported (a shot at the house of Windsor).
And two, the sheer power of incumbancy and the tendancy as our forefathers pointed out of the mob to vote themselves the contents of the treasury if given the opportunity.
Also the American school of thought was that you served your time and went home after serving your community and by the time of that amendment, we had what we still have, a class of professional as vs. citizen politician.
Just some thoughts.
And two, the sheer power of incumbancy and the tendancy as our forefathers pointed out of the mob to vote themselves the contents of the treasury if given the opportunity.
Also the American school of thought was that you served your time and went home after serving your community and by the time of that amendment, we had what we still have, a class of professional as vs. citizen politician.
Just some thoughts.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Re: A couple of political questions for Americans
The americans didn't want a Bush either but that didn't stop their supreme court from giving them one.
Oliver Clozoff said:
The americans didn't want a Bush either but that didn't stop their supreme court from giving them one.
G
Guest
Guest
Foreign Born
Actually, I am reasonably certain that our first 13 Presidents were born under "foreign" rulers. They were not citizens of the USA, how do you reconcile that?
Actually, I am reasonably certain that our first 13 Presidents were born under "foreign" rulers. They were not citizens of the USA, how do you reconcile that?
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
I've always thought that...
...two terms and you're out was a peculiar way to run a country.
I can't even understand it if the President was a disaster but even less so if he was the best thing since sliced bread?
From our perspective it would appear that the powers that be don't trust the American people to make up their own minds. It's more like sharing the job out between the boys with each getting a fair crack of the whip regardless of whether they are doing a good job or not.
...two terms and you're out was a peculiar way to run a country.
I can't even understand it if the President was a disaster but even less so if he was the best thing since sliced bread?
From our perspective it would appear that the powers that be don't trust the American people to make up their own minds. It's more like sharing the job out between the boys with each getting a fair crack of the whip regardless of whether they are doing a good job or not.
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
Re: Re: Re: A couple of political questions for Americans
LOL! I suppose that's true. We'll see what we do from preventing that kind of fiasco from happening again.
Billy Pilgrim: Article II's requirements for a person seeking the Presidency actually requires a person to be either a natural-born US citizen OR a citizen of the US at the time of the Constitution's adoption.
So, we still can have foreign-born Presidents, EBW... as long as they're older than 212.
PP: The US has a very acute fear of tyranny. We're not worried about limiting the leaders that suck (why would you need to do so when the voters would presumably vote out a bad Pres?). We do generally like the idea of "giving everyone a turn". This started with Washington, our first President. At the end of his second term his stature in America was immense... equivalent (or perhaps greater) in the eyes of his countrymen than Napoleon and Caesar at the height of their popularity. He was the hero of the Revolution and a man unquestioned virtue and patriotism.
If Washington had wanted, he may have been able to become king, or at least continue to serve as President in perpetuity, becoming a de facto monarch. Washington was acutely aware that his actions would shape the future of the institution of the Presidency. He wanted to imbue the office of the President with power, rather than it's office-holder. While we take this idea of the Presidency for granted today, at the time it was absolutely revolutionary. Very rarely in history have men achieved such power and given it up voluntarily.
In fact, Washington had to look back all the way to the great Roman farmer-turned statesman-turned back to farmer, Cincinnatus for his example of a leader who achieved almost complete power as Roman consul, yet choosing to give up all his power to return to tilling fields. Again, it's taken for granted today, but it's a revolutionary idea.
Washington became the modern Cincinnatus, going from the hero of the Revolution, President, and potential king to being a simple Virginia landholder. Far out, huh?
Americans have idealized his example. For 150 years no American President even attempted to seek a third term because of the unspoken rule established by Washington that 8 years would be the limit. FDR, starting to carry the country out of the depression was the first to challenge it. He was elected to 4 terms, dying early in his 4th term.
I think our country was still concerned that if a great man seized control of the Presidency he wouldn't be as magnanimous as Washington and might try to establish himself as an institution of government, supplanting the office of the Presidency.
Unreg said:
LOL! I suppose that's true. We'll see what we do from preventing that kind of fiasco from happening again.
Billy Pilgrim: Article II's requirements for a person seeking the Presidency actually requires a person to be either a natural-born US citizen OR a citizen of the US at the time of the Constitution's adoption.
So, we still can have foreign-born Presidents, EBW... as long as they're older than 212.
PP: The US has a very acute fear of tyranny. We're not worried about limiting the leaders that suck (why would you need to do so when the voters would presumably vote out a bad Pres?). We do generally like the idea of "giving everyone a turn". This started with Washington, our first President. At the end of his second term his stature in America was immense... equivalent (or perhaps greater) in the eyes of his countrymen than Napoleon and Caesar at the height of their popularity. He was the hero of the Revolution and a man unquestioned virtue and patriotism.
If Washington had wanted, he may have been able to become king, or at least continue to serve as President in perpetuity, becoming a de facto monarch. Washington was acutely aware that his actions would shape the future of the institution of the Presidency. He wanted to imbue the office of the President with power, rather than it's office-holder. While we take this idea of the Presidency for granted today, at the time it was absolutely revolutionary. Very rarely in history have men achieved such power and given it up voluntarily.
In fact, Washington had to look back all the way to the great Roman farmer-turned statesman-turned back to farmer, Cincinnatus for his example of a leader who achieved almost complete power as Roman consul, yet choosing to give up all his power to return to tilling fields. Again, it's taken for granted today, but it's a revolutionary idea.
Washington became the modern Cincinnatus, going from the hero of the Revolution, President, and potential king to being a simple Virginia landholder. Far out, huh?
Americans have idealized his example. For 150 years no American President even attempted to seek a third term because of the unspoken rule established by Washington that 8 years would be the limit. FDR, starting to carry the country out of the depression was the first to challenge it. He was elected to 4 terms, dying early in his 4th term.
I think our country was still concerned that if a great man seized control of the Presidency he wouldn't be as magnanimous as Washington and might try to establish himself as an institution of government, supplanting the office of the Presidency.
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
It's only possible to be a tyrant if you actually have political power, peeps.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Good old Webster...
TYR'ANNY, n.
1. Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression.
2. Cruel government or discipline; as the tyranny of a master.
3. Unresisted and cruel power.
4. Absolute monarchy cruelly administered
Could we both be right?
Oliver Clozoff said:It's only possible to be a tyrant if you actually have political power, peeps.
TYR'ANNY, n.
1. Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression.
2. Cruel government or discipline; as the tyranny of a master.
3. Unresisted and cruel power.
4. Absolute monarchy cruelly administered
Could we both be right?
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
This is a weird turn of events, PP. Are you trying to argue that the British monarchy is tyrranical? That's funny to me - the idea of the modern British monarchy oppressing anyone seems a bit ridiculous (unless you consider being subjected to constant media coverage of the Royals to be tyranny. haha) What powers does the queen have except to receive a fat annual check from the exchequer? She can "preside" and issue "proclamations" and wave her scepter around, but can you imagine her oppressing anyone?
Didn't Parliament battle for hundreds of years for the very purpose of wresting power from the monarchy to make government more accountable to the people? I always understood that it had worked.
Is there an secret absolute monarchy in Britain you've been hiding from us?
Didn't Parliament battle for hundreds of years for the very purpose of wresting power from the monarchy to make government more accountable to the people? I always understood that it had worked.
Is there an secret absolute monarchy in Britain you've been hiding from us?
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Oliver Clozoff said:
Is there an secret absolute monarchy in Britain you've been hiding from us?
Oliver you have probably hit upon, by mistake, one of the least known facts about our Royal family. I only know of it through a friend of a friend of a friend etc. etc.
One of the reasons the Royal Family have not stood down, and I believe they would dearly love to, is that they have a crucial constitutional role to fulfil whilst the present political and social situation remains unchanged.
In times of great danger to the United Kingdom, a military coup, the collapse of the elected government and total breakdown in social order, a Civil War, a conquering nation, it will be the role of the Royals to form a focal point for those of us who will be opposed to the new order. If that time ever came the Royal family would once again take on the mantle of absolute monarchy, answerable to no-one. And their purpose would be to restore the status quo.
There have been many academic articles written about the subject over the years but rarely anything published in the popular press or portrayed on our TV screens.
Some years ago the Queen forced the dissolution of the Australian Parliament on the advice of her Government and that country was forced to a General Election. It will never happen again because after the event the Australian Constitution was changed. But the fact that it did happen was a shock to everyone. Nobody realised that the Monarchy still held those all embracing powers.
Well as far as the UK is concerned it is believed, by those of us who take an interest in this sort of thing, that the Queen as the Head of State, still has them.
In a way it's our insurance policy. If things get so bad as to look hopeless we will still have one flag to rally around albeit a Royal one.
So you could say yes, there is a secret absolute monarchy in the UK that we have been hiding even from ourselves. The only thing is that it will only be activated as a last resort.
Anyway back to American politics, which is what this thread is all about after all!
Many of you are focusing on why these things came to be, which is fine and dandy, but my real question is do they make an awful lot of sense for todays America. Why shouldn't the populace been allowed to elect Clinton for a third term? And why shouldn't someone who was born in another country be allowed to be president today?
