The executive branch ultimately adopted by the Founders was not the only one considered at the Constitutional Convention of 1786. For the most part, Convention delegates agreed that some type of executive was needed. for the government to work (Pika & Maltese, The Politics of the Presidency p. 16). With this in mind, it is not surprising that the three major plans presented to Congress – the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and the Hamilton Plan – all had an executive of some sort. The Virginia Plan called for an executive who would be appointed by Congress and serve for an indefinite number of years, but would be limited to a single term. The powers granted to this executive would be the executive powers granted to Congress under the Articles of Confederation and the ability to enforce national laws. In addition to this, the executive branch would be part of a review board that would review legislation passed by Congress, this board could reject the legislation with the option for the legislature to re-pass the legislation. If this plan had been adopted, the executive branch would be relatively weak, because the executive powers given to Congress by the Articles of Confederation were lacking and, instead of being able to veto legislation on its own, it would instead have to depend of the rest of the power. the advice to accept. Although this plan would be an improvement, the executive would be subordinate to the legislative branch. The New Jersey plan called for an executive composed of several members chosen by Congress, this plural executive would serve for one term and could be removed at any time by a simple majority of state governors (cite web). This plural executive would be able to appoint federal officers... middle of paper ... which, when passed in 1951, was the first amendment that actually diminished democratic ideals (Karol, Debating the Presidency p. 50). This constitutional amendment removed the ability for the people to decide whether they want to keep the same president after 8 years. This goes against all democratic values ​​and why? Because we fear that power corrupts. However, this is a moot point. In studies of gubernatorial term limits, there is no evidence that term limits affect corruption levels significantly (Karol, Debating the Presidency p. 54). Repealing the 22nd Amendment would not only benefit democracy, but would hold presidents more accountable in their second terms and prevent a lame duck presidency (Karol, Debating the Presidency, p. 55). With these two steps, we will be much closer to realizing the imagined democracy we preach to so many other countries..