Presidents of Presidents during my lifetime

[Arrow]

32. Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1933-1945

33. Harry S. Truman 1945-1953

34. Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961

35. John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1961-1963

36. Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963-1969

37. Richard Milhous Nixon 1969-1974

38. Gerald R. Ford1974-1977

39. James (Jimmy) Earl Carter, Jr. 1977-1981

40. Ronald Wilson Reagan1981-1989

41. George H. W. Bush )1989-1993

42. William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton1993-2001

43. George W Bush2001-

[Arrow]

save me some time and research if you know which party was in control of the Congress during each Presidents time in office.

[BLUEHAWK]

If I am not totally mistaken, there has not been a situation such as you describe except under Bush II and FDR, and not for very long in both of those cases.

Since the House side changes every two years, whenever a majority has existed in BOTH branches of Congress, it is typically very short-lived, and is attended with such intense animosity by the opposition that some members have, actually, crossed over to the other party in order to (fruitlessly) shift the balance.

I am fairly certain there is some kind of obscure Congressional record to which one might go to lay out those two-year shifts in Congressional power, but I have not been able to locate it yet. However, one can be very sure that:

- The shift does occur not less than once every two years, pretty much predictably with rare exceptions.
- The electorate tends to think it is "punishing" Congress (or the President, for that matter) by a sudden and unexpected mid-term election effort to take control OUT of the hands of a majority party.
- Control of Congress, such as it is, exists in most cases basically in a single vote of one member (e.g. what Gore did at the Impeachment trial), which cannot usually be depended upon by either side.
- Having the opposition party in control during a given administration does not necessarily result in or mean that the President's policies are opposed.

IMHO, all this nonsense could be rectified pretty quickly if:

a. The presidential term of office were to be eight instead of four years.
b. All members of both houses of Congress served for not more than four years term of office at one go.

Maybe I'm way off the mark of where you intended this thread to go, but I've thought along your lines quite a bit myself.

The point is, even FDR did not always have a Democrat Congress, and we all recall what happened to Clinton when the Repubs surprisingly took over mid-term. Finally, I believe it is close to true to state that the Dems have basically controlled Congress for about the past 40 years or so, one way and another.

I'll keep watching to see if one of our scholars comes up with the exact answer you sought.

[Andy]

FDR had both houses of congress from 33 till his death in 45.
Truman had both houses from 45 to 51
Ike had both houses for all eight of his years.
JFK had both houses for his 3 years.
LBJ had both houses for his five years.
Carter had both houses for his 4 years.
GW currently has both houses.

Bluehawk: I know what your saying, term limits Sounds like a damn good idea. However it's takes a new guy a little while to find out what he/she is supposed to do, who has the "juice" etc. With short term limits we, in fact, give more power to unelected lobbyist. Probably not a good thing. Term limits could be ruled a violation of free speech, banning lobbyiest is clearly a violation of free speech. Sure that probably is not a popular comment but particularly with the lobbies, there's not doubt they have the right to pitch their ideas. If it cost them large dollars to get access, well that's always been the way it's worked.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[BLUEHAWK]

Andy -
Good post, great info.

I guess I didn't mean to speak of "term limits" once someone is elected... what I was trying to get at is thinking differently about the Constitutional limitations on terms... 8 for Prez, 6 for Senator, 2 for Representative.

I agree with you in a certain way, I am not all that big on what folks today call "term limits", when they mean limiting the number of terms a person can serve. It never bothered me to know that FDR kept getting elected, it was (apparently) the will of the people. If we are gonna call ourselves a democracy, then we ought to avoid fiddling with the electoral process in such a way as to administratively thwart the people's will:
(such as with the stupid electoral college, gerrymandering, super majorities and closed primaries).

Up until FDR, I reckon, since it hadn't ever happened before, Congress put in the two consecutive terms rule on the Prez. But, at no time was it the case that just because FDR had both houses things went smoothly, shall we say :D

Seems to me like we have gone Wayyyyyyyyyy beyond the usefulness of a mere 2-year term for House members though. In fact, they get in office, find the bathroom, and have to start raising funds for the next election, practically. This also really disturbs continuity in the Presidency, as far as I can tell.... he has to get ready for FOUR mid-term elections of House members (if he gets elected twice), and at least one of the Senate, PLUS at least one of his own under normal conditions. That is crazy, expensive and wasteful. It really f--ks up the flow of legislation and focus. It's almost as if we find ourselves today in an INDUSTRY of elections per se, where pollsters, party hacks and media giants can predict with certainty a certain amount of revenue which has not one damn thing to do with operating a Republic responsibly. If the Prez were not also the CINC, then I'd not be so concerned. We are vets..., so to my mind ANYthing that might disturb the concentration of the CINC (over which the electorate has control) puts at risk the folks under command.

Why not let the Prez have one eight-year term, and each part of the house four, if not also eight. Seems like everybody keeps getting all stirred up every two years, basically for no real good reason in this day and age.

I am sure Arrow did not mean for her thread to get driven off in this direction, but I'm on a roll here about something really really important, or so it seems. I'm sure I'll get suitably admonished here shortly...

The MINUTE anyone whispers tinkering with the Constitution very nearly all us conservatives get hands on deck to grumble about the wisdom of our forefathers etc etc etc etc etc. I grasp that point. However, the forebears did not have sufficient wisdom to take into account Television 365/24/7, and getting from Frisco to NY in 5 hours. So, especially when it comes to the legal term of House members, the way it is kinda reminds me of dealing with horses... when you come near them they can virtually SMELL whether you want to have them do something they aren't likely to be interested in doing. A House member gets elected, and they know from day one that to keep feeding their family (or whatever their motives might be) they GOTTA run again, like REAL soon. Seems to me, IMHO, knowing what little I do about human nature, that for us Americans to let that continue much longer has become a sure way to perpetuate confusion, divert the people's attention from governance of our own nation, keep the electorate subservient to special interests (not that they are incapable of finding a way around a better method), in wartime to cause needless suffering.

The political party system, in its ever so resplendent generosity, does not hesitate to exacerbate the people's loyalties... just in time to give a President heartburn every two years... yadda yadda yadda :p

That was more or less what I was intending to mean... :cd: