English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

who would have taken the presidency if the 22nd amendment had not been passed in 1967?

2007-01-31 14:43:32 · 5 answers · asked by rayvin50 2 in Politics & Government Government

For thoses of you who dont understand the question, who would have been president in 1967 if the 22nd amendment didnt exist?

2007-01-31 15:38:48 · update #1

5 answers

A stange question, because the 22nd amendment was not passed in 1967.

2007-01-31 14:52:10 · answer #1 · answered by OldGringo 7 · 4 0

These days a term and a half is about all we can expect before "energy and ideas" run too low to generate sufficient support for a third term. For those too young to remember, Reagan was subjected to the incessant daily trashing as W faces today. All the horrible things the Dems and Libs say about Bush were said about Reagan, Bush 41, Ford, and Nixon. If you tell big lies often enough a certain percentage of people will believe them. And it probably doesn't matter what policies W or the above pursued, for opposition would be critical of them. Had he not gone to Iraq, he would have been criticized for that--this goes to both parties to some extent--each side wants to differentiate themselves from the opposition and this is the usual tactic. In short, with 24/7 media no one can last more than 2 terms as a practical matter.

2007-01-31 15:04:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'm thinking that you meant 1947. It was passed due to the three terms spent in office by President Roosevelt. Although going back in history he died while in office, President Truman followed him in office. The amendment was passed to keep it from happening again. Hope that answered your question.

2007-01-31 16:38:06 · answer #3 · answered by Jon R 2 · 0 0

Well, considering it passed in 1947, I can't tell if you are using that to make a point about people that don't know crap about the constitution, or if you really think there is some value in speculating on a hypothetical situation that most could not care less about .

2007-01-31 15:34:13 · answer #4 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 0 0

Impossible to tell.

Reagan could have ran for a third term in 1988 but probably wouldn't have as by 1986, he was pretty much "out of it".

Clinton could have ran in 2000 but probably would have lost as the country was looking for a change.

"W" could run again in 2008 but probably would have been ousted by his own party due to having a 30% approval rating.

2007-01-31 14:49:10 · answer #5 · answered by Wayne Z 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers