Note: This is not a transcription of the original Virginia Plan as submitted by Edmund Randolph on May 29, 1787. This is a transcription of the document from June 13,1787, showing the proposed resolutions "as Altered, Amended, and Agreed to in a Committee of the Whole House," a third of the way through the convention.
I'm quoting from "A Patriot's History of the United States" by Schweikart and Allen. On page 112, it says:
A president would serve alongside federal judges (with lifetime terms) ...
Regardless of how you interpret that passage, it is a fact that there was no such idea as term limits at the Constitutional Convention, or if it was discussed, it was rejected, both for the president and congress.
Washington served only two terms, refusing to run again for a third term. And out of respect for that man, presidents only served two terms, up until FDR, who was elected for four terms but died shortly into his fourth term. (FDR being one of the worst presidents in our history.) After that, it was discussed and decided and the constitution so amended such that presidents serve only up to two terms.
A lifetime president is not a ridiculous idea, any more than a lifetime judge, because, when you consider what the role of president was at the founding of our nation, it was SECONDARY to the Speaker of the House. Both the Virginia and New Jersey plans put CONGRESS at the center of the government, with the executive and judicial as appendages to it. Indeed, if our forefathers saw what we have done with the office of president, they would be flabberghasted and wonder why the Speaker of the House, with ALL THE POWER to control every part of government, rode in the back seat of government. The president, at best, can merely suggest a course of action on the international scene, and is entirely at the whim of congress to do anything but talk about it.
We evolved from a strong parliamentary system into a strong executive system, from a republic to an empire, if you like to read history books and compare the American system with, say, the Roman one. ("Empire", by the way, has nothing to do with a collection of kingdoms, but refers to the imperial powers of the imperator -- the one who commands.)
I should add, the exact text of the original submission is debated, but it had a lifetime appointment for president. This was quickly changed to serving terms of X years, but there was the understanding of no term limits.
The idea of term limits didn't start until long after President Washington died. It was FDR that caused it to be put on paper. Until then, the stress was considered more than a mortal should bear.
If Washington was younger or better able to manage the stress perhaps he would've served 4 or 10 terms. If he was successful in building an administration that could manage itself with his oversight, perhaps until death.
Regardless, no lifetime tenure for president--unless you have sauce du contraire from another version of the Virginia Plan?
I'm quoting from "A Patriot's History of the United States" by Schweikart and Allen. On page 112, it says:
Regardless of how you interpret that passage, it is a fact that there was no such idea as term limits at the Constitutional Convention, or if it was discussed, it was rejected, both for the president and congress.
Washington served only two terms, refusing to run again for a third term. And out of respect for that man, presidents only served two terms, up until FDR, who was elected for four terms but died shortly into his fourth term. (FDR being one of the worst presidents in our history.) After that, it was discussed and decided and the constitution so amended such that presidents serve only up to two terms.
A lifetime president is not a ridiculous idea, any more than a lifetime judge, because, when you consider what the role of president was at the founding of our nation, it was SECONDARY to the Speaker of the House. Both the Virginia and New Jersey plans put CONGRESS at the center of the government, with the executive and judicial as appendages to it. Indeed, if our forefathers saw what we have done with the office of president, they would be flabberghasted and wonder why the Speaker of the House, with ALL THE POWER to control every part of government, rode in the back seat of government. The president, at best, can merely suggest a course of action on the international scene, and is entirely at the whim of congress to do anything but talk about it.
We evolved from a strong parliamentary system into a strong executive system, from a republic to an empire, if you like to read history books and compare the American system with, say, the Roman one. ("Empire", by the way, has nothing to do with a collection of kingdoms, but refers to the imperial powers of the imperator -- the one who commands.)
I should add, the exact text of the original submission is debated, but it had a lifetime appointment for president. This was quickly changed to serving terms of X years, but there was the understanding of no term limits.
The idea of term limits didn't start until long after President Washington died. It was FDR that caused it to be put on paper. Until then, the stress was considered more than a mortal should bear.
If Washington was younger or better able to manage the stress perhaps he would've served 4 or 10 terms. If he was successful in building an administration that could manage itself with his oversight, perhaps until death.