On Feb 7, 6:22=A0pm, "Mike Stone" wrote:
>
> Even before we get to 1916, there could be some interesting matters. Firs=
t
> off, I recall a thread about a proposed Constitutional Amendment, limitin=
g
> the President to a single six-year term (from 1920). OTL, this was scuppe=
red
> by the disapproval of President-elect Wilson. Bryan, I understand, had go=
ne
> repeatedly on record as favouring a single term, so unless he has an abru=
pt
> change of heart on becoming POTUS himself, it could pass in the ATL.
>
Apropos that, I've found an interesting New York Times article at
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3D1&res=3D9505E4DD133BE633=
A25751C0A9649C946296D6CF
What intrigues me is that it differs significantly from the original
thread. Iirc, that indicated that the Amendment would have been
operative only from 1920, and would not have applied to the President
in office at the time of its adoption. However, the NYT seems quite
definite that it was to take effect immediately, anfd that Wilson's
term would be extended to accord with its provisions. Did the NYT get
it wrong?
Be that as it may, the NYT version could have consequences at least as
interesting as the original thread. Had Wilson gone along with it, he
would have been kicking himself six years later, when WW1 came to an
end just as his successor (Harding? Hughes? MacAdoo?) was being
elected, and he himself left the White House just as the Paris Peace
Conference was assembling. A President Bryan, I suspect, would have
been less troubled.
Possible knock-on effect. Since the Amendment apparently disqualifies
anyone who has served before as POTUS, however briefly, could a custom
develop that any sitting VP, if nominated for President, would
immediately resign the Vice-Presidency, so that if anything happened
to the incumbent, the VP would not find himself disqualified by having
acted as President before the election?
Of course, the Amendment still had to pass the HoR, and might have
been altered there to modify this provision. However, in view of its
wafer-thin passage (47-23), its supporters in the House might have
been unwilling to return it there in case the modified version fell
short of the two-thirds. Rather than risk this, they might just pass
it as it stood and hope for the best.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts
one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard only to find the vodka bottle
empty".
P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless- Hide quoted text - |
