4 ms·

Compare and contrast with monarchs, as the Framers did. Edit: While I'd like to build out the analogy further, there's only one data point that I can find in t

Compare and contrast with monarchs, as the Framers did. Edit: While I'd like to build out the analogy further, there's only one data point that I can find in the missing quadrant: The Philippines have a limited number and duration of terms for their legislators. One data point is not enough to even identify a single confounding factor, and there's too many ways in which the USA and the Philippines differ.

slg 7y ago
Prolonged reigns are not among the biggest flaws of monarchies. The primary problem is first and foremost the power a monarch generally has compared to a president or prime minister. Next comes the difficultly of removing that person from the position is incredibly difficult if they prove unfit in any way unlike positions in a democracy. Lastly is the selection process in which people are usually chosen for their bloodline and not any skill or even a predilection for governance. A long reigning monarch in fact is often linked to eras of prosperity for their countries rather than a steady decline as the monarch ages. Also I should note that unlike fixes for the three flaws mentioned above, presidential term limits weren't officially part of the Constitution until after WWII. It clearly wasn't a high priority for the framers to formalize term limits.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > Next comes the difficultly of removing that person from the position is incredibly difficult if they prove unfit in any way unlike positions in a democracy. I think current events are demonstrating that we're unable to remove hilariously unfit people in democracies, too.
  - slg 7y ago
    Regardless of your opinions on this specific president, we need to recognize that removing any president through impeachment should require a high bar of difficulty in order to maintain the balance of power. Impeachment is a check on the president. Making it too easy would result in the president serving at the pleasure of Congress. That said, I was mostly talking about elections in which we have the chance to remove our leaders every 2, 4, or 6 years.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      When the president's crime is election rigging, the idea that we're supposed to keep him in check via the rigged election is pretty weak. When the president's crime is election rigging, the idea that we're supposed to keep him in check via the rigged election is pretty weak. We've now established the precedent that brazen election rigging is fair game as long as your party holds a hair over 1/3 of the senate.
      - slg 7y ago
        I don't disagree. However, I think the primary complaint is against people abdicating their constitutional responsibility and not the makeup of the Constitution itself.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
favorited 7y ago
Then why did the Framers add neither Presidential nor Congressional term limits to the Constitution (never mind the Federal judiciary)?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

slg 7y ago

Prolonged reigns are not among the biggest flaws of monarchies. The primary problem is first and foremost the power a monarch generally has compared to a president or prime minister. Next comes the difficultly of removing that person from the position is incredibly difficult if they prove unfit in any way unlike positions in a democracy. Lastly is the selection process in which people are usually chosen for their bloodline and not any skill or even a predilection for governance. A long reigning monarch in fact is often linked to eras of prosperity for their countries rather than a steady decline as the monarch ages. Also I should note that unlike fixes for the three flaws mentioned above, presidential term limits weren't officially part of the Constitution until after WWII. It clearly wasn't a high priority for the framers to formalize term limits.

mullingitover 7y ago
> Next comes the difficultly of removing that person from the position is incredibly difficult if they prove unfit in any way unlike positions in a democracy. I think current events are demonstrating that we're unable to remove hilariously unfit people in democracies, too.
- slg 7y ago
  Regardless of your opinions on this specific president, we need to recognize that removing any president through impeachment should require a high bar of difficulty in order to maintain the balance of power. Impeachment is a check on the president. Making it too easy would result in the president serving at the pleasure of Congress. That said, I was mostly talking about elections in which we have the chance to remove our leaders every 2, 4, or 6 years.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    When the president's crime is election rigging, the idea that we're supposed to keep him in check via the rigged election is pretty weak. When the president's crime is election rigging, the idea that we're supposed to keep him in check via the rigged election is pretty weak. We've now established the precedent that brazen election rigging is fair game as long as your party holds a hair over 1/3 of the senate.
    - slg 7y ago
      I don't disagree. However, I think the primary complaint is against people abdicating their constitutional responsibility and not the makeup of the Constitution itself.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

favorited 7y ago

Then why did the Framers add neither Presidential nor Congressional term limits to the Constitution (never mind the Federal judiciary)?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]