"SEC. 2. This article shall take effect on the 1st day of February following its ratification, except that this article shall not affect the duration of the term of office of President and Vice President in which such day occurs.

"SEC. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Washington, D.C., September 9, 1971.

To: The Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments (Attn. of Peter Coogan).

From: Government and General Research Division; Charles W. Harris, Division Chief.

Research by Paul Dwyer.

Subject: Presidential tenure: proposals to change the term to six years.

Pursuant to our telephone conversation, we submit a report providing a synopsis of the debate in the Constitutional Convention regarding the tenure of the President. A second report discusses the amendments proposed to the Constitution altering the tenure of the President, with a list of amendments introduced in Congress providing for a six-year term. We have provided in the list the sponsor of each measure, the Congress and session in which introduced, and the date of introduction.

In addition to the articles which we have previously forwarded, we enclose excerpts from the Federalists Papers and excerpts from the debates of the Constitutional Convention.

As mentioned in our conversation, I will contact you upon my return to the office on September 23. In the meantime, I trust that this information will be useful.

THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM

(By Paul Dwyer, Analyst, American National Government and Public Administration, Government and General Research Division, September 9, 1971)

THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM: DEBATE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION The tenure of office of the President of the United States was one of the most hotly debated topics in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Various proposals were made both as to the term of the President and his eligibility for re-election, factors which in turn hinged on the method by which the Chief Executive was to be chosen. Two alternatives were clearly possible: election by the people, or by the national legislature. If the national legislature was to choose the President, a long term with no re-election was favored by most. If choice was by some other method a short term with possibility of re-election, was generally favored. Popular election was not considered with great favor at any time during the proceedings of the Convention. On the other hand, the proposals for selection of the President by the national legislature gave rise to fears that the legislature would control the Executive, thus destroying the principle of separation of powers. A long term and ineligibility for re-election were proposed as devices designed to insure the independence of the President from the legislature.

No fewer than sixty ballots were cast before the method of selecting the President was determined. Five times, the Convention voted in favor of having the President appointed by Congress. Once they voted against that, once for electors chosen by state legislators, twice against that, and then voted again to reconsider the entire issue. Madison remained opposed to popular election, one of his arguments being that people would prefer a citizen of their own state, thereby subjecting the small states to a disadvantage.

The question of tenure repeatedly was returned to debate. As argument for a long term, Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers inquired if peace and stability would be served by having half a dozen former Presidents "wandering among the people like discontented ghosts and sighing for a place they were destined never more to possess"? Benjamin Franklin in Convention supported re-eligibility. "In free governments the rulers are the servants," Franklin said, "and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former therefore to return among the latter is not to degrade but to promote them."

Proposals regarding tenure in the Convention varied from a term of three years with eligibility for re-election to a term of seven years without reeligibility. The first vote taken resulted in a choice of seven years without reeligibility, while the second vote provided for reeligibility. On the third vote, a resolution was passed providing for a term of seven years without possibility of reelection. The resolution was then referred to a committee, containing one member from each of the eleven states represented in the Convention. The committee referred back to the Convention a resolution providing for a term of four years. The final decision of the Convention was for a term of four years with the possibility of reelection indefinitely.

The question of the term of office of the Executive was taken up in the Constitutional Convention on May 29, 1787, when Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia, presented to the Convention a plan of government consisting of 15 resolutions, No. 7 of which provided for a single executive "to be chosen by the national legislature for a term of years... to be ineligible a second time." The Randolph Resolutions were commonly known as the Virginia Plan. On the same day, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina also presented a plan whereby the Executive was to be elected for a term of years (also left blank in the resolution) to be eligible for re-election. Both plans were referred to the Committee of the Whole, and the Convention began its debates.

On June 1, the Convention began consideration of the Randolph provision relating to the Executive, and although it had been able in a day to cast practically the entire outline of the powers of the national legislature, consideration of the Executive was deliberate and uncertain. On June 1, a term of seven years was first approved by the Convention, with ineligibility for a second term added the next day. On the motion for the seven-year term, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia voted "for" with Connecticut, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia voting "against". The vote of the Massachusetts delegates was divided and the motion was declared carried. The motion to make the Executive ineligible after seven years carried, 7 to 2.

Although Pinckney and George Mason of Virginia were staunch supporters of the seven year plan, Gunning Bedford of Delaware strongly opposed so long a term as seven years. He asked the committee to consider what situation the country would be in case the executive "should be saddled on it for such a period and it should be found on trial that he did not possess the qualifications ascribed to him, or should lose them after his appointment." An impeachment, Bedford said, would be "no cure for this evil, as an impeachment would reach misfeasance only, not incapacity." He proposed a triennial election and an ineligibility after a period of nine years.

On June 15 William Patterson of New Jersey offered a set of nine resolutions as a substitute for those already voted in the Committee of the Whole. Article 4 of the Patterson plan recommended the election of an Executive to continue in office for an unspecified term of years and to be ineligible for a second time. Patterson's plan was referred to the Committee of the Whole and Randolph's plan was recommitted to the Committee.

Alexander Hamilton of New York then proposed a plan, Article 4 of which recommended that the supreme executive authority be vested in a "Governour" to be elected to serve during "good behavior".

Hunt and Scott in their analysis of the Federal Convention state: "[Hamilton] appealed to the feelings of the members present whether a term of seven years would induce the sacrifices of private affairs which an acceptance of public trust would require, so as to ensure the services of the best citizens. On the plau of appointing [the executive] for seven years he thought [the executive] ought to have but little power. He would be ambitious, with the means of making creatures; and as the object of his ambition would be to prolong his power it is probable that in case of a war, he would avail himself of the emergence to evade or refuse a degration from his place. An Executive for life has not this motive for forgetting his fidelity, and will therefore be a safer depository of power.' On June 19 the Randolph plan was reported by the Committee of the Whole. It provided that the Executive should be elected by the national legislative for a seven year term and should be ineligible a second time. The resolution came before

1 The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. Gaillard Hunt and James Brown Scott, Editors. New York: Oxford University Press, 1920, p. 40-41.

the Convention again on July 17 when an amendment striking out the provision for "ineligibility for a second time" was adopted by the Convention by a 6 to 4 vote. William Houston of New Jersey moved to strike the clause fearing that the ineligibility proposed by the clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by reappointment.

James McClurg of Virginia moved to strike out seven years and insert "during good behavior". By striking the words declaring him not re-eligible, the Executive would be put into a situation that would keep him dependent forever on the Legislature; and he conceived the independence of the Executive to be equally essential with that of the Judiciary.

Governeur Morris seconded this motion. He indicated indifference to the selection of the Executive, provided he held his place by a set tenure. Roger Sherman of Connecticut considered tenure as by no means safe or admissible. If the Executive were reeligible, Sherman considered that he would be on good behavior as far as would be necessary.

Mason considered an executive during good behavior as a softer name only for an executive for life. "The next would be an easy step to hereditary monarchy." Subsequently, the question for inserting "during good behavior" in place of seven years [with a reeligibility] failed to pass. It was however unanimously agreed that the vote which had struck out the words "to be ineligible a second time" should be reconsidered at the next session.

On July 19, Luther Martin of Maryland reinstated ineligibility. Morris spoke in opposition to the Martin motion stating that to make the Executive ineligible "would tend to destroy the great incitement to merit public esteem by taking away the hope of being rewarded with a reappointment. It would tempt him to make the most of the short space of time allotted him to accumulate wealth and provide for his friends. . . . Let him be of short duration that he may with propriety be reeligible."

Randolph too supported the motion of Martin for restoring the words making the Executive ineligible a second time. He thought an election by the national legislature with an incapacity to be elected a second time would be more acceptable to the people than a shorter term as suggested by Morris.

Madison stated that "if it be a fundamental principle of free government that the legislature, executive and judiciary powers should be separately exercised it is equally so that they be independently exercised. . . . It is essential then that the appointment of the executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the legislature. This could not be if he were to be appointed from time to time by the legislature."

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts thought that if the Executive was to be elected by the legislature he certainly ought not to be reeligible. Martin then moved that the Executive be ineligible a second time. The motion failed. A second vote on the question that the Executive term be for seven years, also failed of passage. Ellsworth was for six years, as was Williamson. Both men stated that if the elections be too frequent, the executive will not be as stable as desired. The expense would be considerable it was felt and if too frequent the most qualified men would not undertake the service, and those of an inferior character would be liable to be corrupted. Although the vote on July 19 on a reinstatement of ineligibility motion was defeated, the vote to fix the term at six years with election to be by electors was approved. Those states voting for six years were Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

On July 24 the Convention which had been favoring election by electors went back to election by the National Legislature on an affirmative vote on a motion by Houston. Gerry led the opposition stating that if the motion were agreed to it would be necessary to make the executive ineligible a second time, in order to render him independent of the legislature. The vote for a six year term necessitated reconsideration for the length of term and eligibility for re-election.

Williamson favored going back to the orginal seven year term with ineligibility for a second time. Houston then proposed that the Executive be appointed by the National Legislature. The motion however was defeated. Martin and Gerry moved to reinstate the ineligibility of the Executive a second time. At the same time Gerry held that the Executive should be independent of the legislature. The longer the term of his appointment the more his independence would be di

minished. "It would be better for him to continue one, fifteen, or even twenty years, and be ineligible afterwards. Martin then moved that the term be for eleven years. Gerry suggested fifteen years. King moved for twenty years and Davis for eight years.

On July 25 the question of the selection of the Executive to be chosen by the legislature with the proviso that no person be eligible for more than six years in any twelve years was defeated by a 6 to 5 vote. On July 26 the Convention returned to the original proposal of Randolph and voted for seven years and no reelection. This motion was carried by a 7 to 3 vote. While the motion related to the term of office only, the entire resolution, providing that an Executive for a term of seven years and to be ineligible for a second time, was then passed by a 7 to 3 vote.

The Convention then on July 26 referred its proceedings to the Committee on Detail, and adjourned to meet again on August 6. The "Report" of the Committee on Detail ten days later recommended a term of seven years with ineligibility for a second term, and that the President should be elected by ballot of the National Legislature, but it did not specify whether by separate or joint ballot. If by joint ballot, some considered that the small States would have less influence. This seems to have then turned the thoughts of some to favor election by electors chosen by the people, which had been defeated June 2, adopted July 19, and rejected again July 24. On August 24 Governor Morris made a strong speech on the dangers of choice by the National Legislature and favored choice by electors chosen by the people. Five States voted for and six against the proposal of Morris. The report of the Committee of Eleven to which various resolutions had been referred, made on September 4, finally solved the difficult question of the method of the election of the President, in favor of electors, but if no person received a majority the Senate was to elect the President. The term of the President was to be four years, with no restrictions as to eligibility for re-election. On September 5 the question of the selection of the Executive was debated, with Pinckney and Rutledge of South Carolina speaking against re-eligibility to a second term. On September 6 Hamilton refrained from joining in the discussion because of his dislike of the proposed scheme of government in general, but eventually did support the plan of the Committee of Eleven. Hamilton favored re-eligibility but felt that if the Executive were appointed by the legislature he would be tempted to make use of corrupt influence to be continued in office. Therefore, it seemed to him particularly desirable that some other mode of election be devised. An attempt was made to fix the term at seven years, which was defeated, as was the proposal to fix it at six years. The four year term suggested by the Committee was accepted September 15 as was the proposal of the electoral college. If electors failed to choose, election was to be by the Senate. But on the proposal of Sherman of Connecticut, this was changed to election by the House but in such a choice each state should have but one vote. This was carried with only Delaware dissenting.

CRS-12

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION RELATIVE TO TENURE OF THE

PRESIDENT

Since the adoption of the Constitution, hundreds of amendments have been proposed to alter its provisions pertaining to the tenure of the President. Nearly 160 amendments have been offered to change the Presidential term from four years to six years. The great majority of these proposed amendments would also have made the President ineligible for reelection. President Andrew Jackson in all eight of his annual messages to Congress (1829-1836), advocated a single term of either four or six years. President William H. Harrison in his inaugural address in 1841 spoke for a single term for the President. In 1844, the Whig platform contained a single-term provision. President Buchanan supported the principle of a single term of six years during the campaign of 1856. The Southern Confederacy, 1861-1865, adopted the single term of six years for its President. President Andrew Johnson expressed his approval of the proposal at least twice during his tenure.

In 1876, H.R. 147 of the 43rd Congress embodying the single six year term proposal was reported from the House Judiciary Committee and was read twice.

The motion to read the bill for the third and final time was defeated by a vote of 134 to 104. An attempt to pass the bill during the next Congress failed after disagreement developed on whether the length of the single term should be four years or six years. Tilden in 1976 and President Hayes in his inaugural address in 1877 both advocated a single six year term.

Cleveland in accepting the Democratic nomination in 1884 expressed his opposition to the re-eligibility of the President. The platforms of the People's Party in 1888 and 1892 and the Democratic Party in 1912 favored a single term but did not specify the length of the term. The Prohibition Party in 1912 and 1916 favored a single six year term.

In 1913, the Senate approved a proposed constitutional amendment providing a single six year term for the President. President-elect Woodrow Wilson objected, however, and the amendment died in the House Judiciary Committee. ExPresident William Howard Taft in a lecture at Columbia University in 1915 expressed himself as favoring a single Presidential term of six or seven years. In 1927, there was extensive debate in Congress on the matter but no action was taken.

In more recent years, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on a proposal made by Democratic Senator Edward R. Burke in 1940. Wendell Willkie in the 1940 campaign favored a single term of eight years or less. The National Negro Council, Governor (later Senator) John Bricker of Ohio, Senator Harry Flood Byrd of Virginia, Senator W. Lee O'Daniel, and other prominent people have all expressed approval of the proposal for a single term of six years. Gallop polls in 1939, 1943, and 1945, however, showed that public opinion was opposed, in a ratio of approximately three to one, to changing the Presidential tenure to a single term of six years.

In 1947, a proposed constitutional amendment limiting the President to two terms of four years each was approved by the Congress and submitted to the States. At that time a minority of the House Judiciary Committee favored no change in the present system, but if there had to be a change, expressed preference for a single term of six years. During the debate on the subject, Senator O'Daniel offered an amendment, defeated by a vote of 82 to 1, to limit all elected officials to a single term of six years.

The majority of amendments proposed in Congress during the 1800's sought to limit the President from being eligible to office for the next ensuing term. In many instances this restriction has been proposed in connection with the proposition to fix the term at six years.

During the period from 1789 ot 1889 over one hundred and twenty-five amendments were submitted proposing a change in the term of office of the President and fixing the period of eligibility. Resolutions calling for a change in tenure reflected the feeling by many at this time that the President would use the patronage of his office to secure his reelection. Approximately fifty-two of these proposals advocated a term set at six years." Thirty-eight of these proposed one term of six years, while 14 proposed a six year term with no limit as to eligibility for reelection. An amendment providing for a six year term was first introduced by Representative Hemphill of Pennsylvania in 1826 and has been advocated at different periods ever since. The majority of the proposals offered during this time stipulated that the President should be ineligible to reelection.

In this period only one six-year term amendment was reported to the full House. In 1875 the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 147 introduced by Representative Potter of New York and providing for a six year term with the incumbent ineligible for two successive terms of office. The measure, however, failed of the necessary two-thirds vote receiving 134 ayes to 104 nays. In the First Session of the next Congress the question was called up again by a majority and minority report of the House Committee on the Judiciary on H.R. 41. Both the reports concurred that the President should not be eligible to reelection, but differed as to tenure, the majority favoring the present term of four years, the minority one of six years. In a vote taken on the majority view, an amendment failed of passage by a vote of 145 yeas to 108 nays. A second vote on the minority proposal of six years was rejected by a vote of 72 ayes to 184 nays."

2 See list titled "Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States Advocating an Executive Term of Six Years: 1789-1971."

H.R. 147 was introduced in the 43d Cong., 2d Sess.

House Journal, 43d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 261-264.

House Journal, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 212, 266, 275, 315, 320–325.

• House Journal, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 212, 275, 315, 323-324.