President George Washington established a tradition that lasted for a century and a half. That tradition was retiring from the office after two terms. That tradition was broken by Franklin Roosevelt when he was elected to a third term in 1940 and subsequently, to a fourth term in 1944. In reaction to FDR's tradition-breaking elections, a Republican controlled congress was able to propose and the states were able to muster enough support to ratify the 22nd Amendment that limits a president to two terms. Interestingly, since that time four different Republicans have been been elected to two terms. Only one Democrat has done so.
The argument presented on behalf of the amendment makes the case that this prevents one individual from becoming too powerful and restricts the growth of the executive branch. Opponents of the concept point out that the amendment denies the voters the opportunity of either expressing their dissatisfaction with the policies of the President or showing their support for them. They reason that if a president is doing a good job why should he not be allowed to continue to serve. Moreover, they fear that we may face a situation where the Constitution requires change when the nation may benefit from the current officeholder staying on during a national emergency or war.
Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed as an impediment to the people's democratic expression? Or is it good to institutionalize change every 4-8 years?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can see both sides of this debate, although I lean more towards changing this one. I think repealing this hindrance could greatly benefit us. Just as the article says, we could be facing a national emergency or war during the election and the president could be doing a great job, but if he is at the end of his 2nd term he would have to step down, potentially causing a great deal more harm to the situation. I think we should definitely look at changing this amendment. I f as a country we decide we no longer want a president in office for 3rd or 4th terms, we wouldn't vote him in.
ReplyDeleteI think we should leave the ammendment alone. We have the option of two terms and that is enough. I think it would be too easy for one person to have to much power if it continued as long as they wanted to stay in. I also believe it is a national secuirty issue. We don't want terroist and others getting too comfortable with our ways of doing things. If we allow no change to happen we leave ourselves wide open to become too comfortable and something get missed.
ReplyDeleteI think that this amendment could be changed to satisfy both arguments. There could be a clause added that states that in the cas of a national emergency the current presidents term would be extended for the duration of 2 years. This would have to be done by a vote of congress. If one person is allowed to serve 3 or 4 terms they could gain too much power and this would upset the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers put in place.
ReplyDeleteI think that it should be repealed. I believe this because if a president and his policies are favored by the people of the us they should not be barred from re-election simply because they have served two terms.
ReplyDeleteI think they should repeal it, but only if the president's policies are helping the nation instead of making life more difficult for the next president. Obama has a lot on his plate right now, mostly because of George W. Bush, and there are many changes that need to happen. If he does a good job and gets America back on track, then I think he should be able to continue his reign. I'm not saying that presidents should serve life terms but if what their doing is working and helping American citizens then it should be continued, regardless of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteFirst and for most, I am afraid if a president is elected for more than two terms, their political party may tend to get in the way of what the president wants to accomplish.And also i think it depends on where the country is at that point in time. And i feel that it gives each political party to much power. I do not think the 22nd amendment should be repealed? You know how the old saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it? And besides that, name one president that you can stand for more than two terms?
ReplyDeleteI believe it should be repealed. If our country is headed in the right direction but the president runs out of time due to serving two terms then he should be giving at least one more term if the people want that.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should make changes to the 22nd Amendment, but not abolish it. Having a president run two terms isn't enough, because the president spends half of his terms campaigning. I think that congress should allow a president to run for 4 terms.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe it should be repealed. This is because I feel it's important to keep a relatively constant change in public offices to prevent one party or one group of politicians from gaining to much power. I also believe this applies to Congress; I wish they had a term limit as well.
ReplyDeleteI like the current situation. One of the fundamental pieces of our government is the peaceful transfer of power. If we allow one person to stay in power with no time limits then we forego a vital piece to our government.
ReplyDelete