3 ms·

The wealthy landowner leading the revolutionary army became king, erm I mean president, after winning the war. The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence

The wealthy landowner leading the revolutionary army became king, erm I mean president, after winning the war. The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence became ruler a short time after him. They could have decided against being rulers, but they didn't.

IncRnd 5y ago
Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I won't fall for arguing about your soundbites.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  Please don't leave a comment if you can't do better than this—it breaks a lot of the guidelines. Regardless of what the other guy said.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    I'll graciously accept that as a good point. Thanks!
    - yesenadam 5y ago
      Thank you. Dang said something similar to me once, I got it from him. :-) and that being on HN is a continual lesson in not replying when feeling triggered. Anyway, some comments don't merit a reply, and are best left hanging there, wheels spinning.
- confidantlake 5y ago
  Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I got sucked into arguing with you when you obviously have the founding fathers as part of your identity and aren't open to discussing it.
mellavora 5y ago
To the rest of the HN community, note that they did decide against being rulers, nor did they ever act as kings. See George Washington's retirement speech: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page... That's why we have a tradition of presidents only serving a maximum of two terms; which we only turned into a law when the tradition was violated.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  > That's why What's why? I skimmed that link, couldn't see a reference to two terms, maybe I missed it. Maybe this is close to the truth: "Surprisingly, many of the Framers—including [Alexander] Hamilton and [James] Madison—supported a lifetime appointment for presidents selected by Congress and not elected by the people,” the [National Constitution Center] writes. “That would have made the presidency what Virginia’s George Mason called an ‘elective monarchy,’ however, and when this was put to a vote it failed by only six votes to four." Instead, they devised a complicated voting system involving the electoral college that would still ensure, as the framers desired, that presidential elections were not solely in the hands of ordinary voters. Within this system, they shortened a president’s appointment from life to four years. And because most of the framers didn’t want to set a limit on how many four-year terms a president could serve, they didn’t say anything about it in the Constitution. Nevertheless, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson ended up setting a two-term precedent. Washington declined to run a third time, but did clarify that he would’ve if he felt he was needed. Jefferson, on the other hand, specifically thought that two terms was enough for one person, and that more might overextend executive power. After these presidents, two terms became the unofficial standard. That is, until FDR broke tradition by winning elections in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. https://www.history.com/news/why-presidents-have-term-limits https://www.history.com/news/why-presidents-have-term-limits
- confidantlake 5y ago
  You are seriously trying to claim George Washington was not a ruler? Sure he wasn't an absolute monarch and he did retire after 8 years. But he was president and the president is a ruler who has a lot in common with a constitutional monarch. One example, King George signed bills of Parliament into law, President Washington signed bills of Congress into law.

IncRnd 5y ago

Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I won't fall for arguing about your soundbites.

yesenadam 5y ago
Please don't leave a comment if you can't do better than this—it breaks a lot of the guidelines. Regardless of what the other guy said.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  I'll graciously accept that as a good point. Thanks!
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    Thank you. Dang said something similar to me once, I got it from him. :-) and that being on HN is a continual lesson in not replying when feeling triggered. Anyway, some comments don't merit a reply, and are best left hanging there, wheels spinning.
confidantlake 5y ago
Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I got sucked into arguing with you when you obviously have the founding fathers as part of your identity and aren't open to discussing it.

mellavora 5y ago

To the rest of the HN community, note that they did decide against being rulers, nor did they ever act as kings. See George Washington's retirement speech: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page... That's why we have a tradition of presidents only serving a maximum of two terms; which we only turned into a law when the tradition was violated.

yesenadam 5y ago
> That's why What's why? I skimmed that link, couldn't see a reference to two terms, maybe I missed it. Maybe this is close to the truth: "Surprisingly, many of the Framers—including [Alexander] Hamilton and [James] Madison—supported a lifetime appointment for presidents selected by Congress and not elected by the people,” the [National Constitution Center] writes. “That would have made the presidency what Virginia’s George Mason called an ‘elective monarchy,’ however, and when this was put to a vote it failed by only six votes to four." Instead, they devised a complicated voting system involving the electoral college that would still ensure, as the framers desired, that presidential elections were not solely in the hands of ordinary voters. Within this system, they shortened a president’s appointment from life to four years. And because most of the framers didn’t want to set a limit on how many four-year terms a president could serve, they didn’t say anything about it in the Constitution. Nevertheless, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson ended up setting a two-term precedent. Washington declined to run a third time, but did clarify that he would’ve if he felt he was needed. Jefferson, on the other hand, specifically thought that two terms was enough for one person, and that more might overextend executive power. After these presidents, two terms became the unofficial standard. That is, until FDR broke tradition by winning elections in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. https://www.history.com/news/why-presidents-have-term-limits https://www.history.com/news/why-presidents-have-term-limits
confidantlake 5y ago
You are seriously trying to claim George Washington was not a ruler? Sure he wasn't an absolute monarch and he did retire after 8 years. But he was president and the president is a ruler who has a lot in common with a constitutional monarch. One example, King George signed bills of Parliament into law, President Washington signed bills of Congress into law.