Argument Against The 22nd Amendment

In the wake of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s historic run as undisputed leader of the free world, vindictive Republicans and Southern Democrats got together to pass the 22nd Amendment to limit the president to two terms in office. There is loophole in the amendment in that a president can serve more than two terms if they are an African-American. The feeling was that it would never happen, so there was no need to stop it. Unfortunately, the only person who would apply for this loophole decided not to run. Thanks Obama.
Pro: The clearest argument against the 22nd amendment is that it is undemocratic. By forcing the president out after two terms, voters are not able to vote for someone who they believe may be the best candidate. It is also an amendment …show more content…
The author notes that the U.S has a history of rotation of power and the amendment merely codifies this. It also protects against abuse of power by poor presidents. He also notes that the framers could not have anticipated the power held by the modern president, and so the term limits act as a check on presidential power. President’s also have vast power over appointments, including the supreme court. A president who serves more than two terms would likely end up appointing the majority of the Supreme Court. According to the author, this would lessen judicial independence by having a judiciary full of appointments by one president. The final portion of his argument is that it is healthy for the two party system, and rejuvenates them by having them nominate two people every few years.
Me: I feel we should repeal the amendment. Congress has no term limits, and fight tooth and nail against them, yet seem ok with a term limited president. Plus, as Rankin likes to say, a term limit is called an election. If the people do not like their representative, they will be voted out at some point. And even then, many may decide not to run even if they are able. Plus, the lack of term limits might have saved us from