• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

22nd Amendment?

  • It serves a valuable purpose and should be kept

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • It does more harm than good and should be repealed

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Total voters
    19

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.
 
Every President becomes a lame duck sooner or later, term limits or no.
 
We have term limits - always have. They are called regular elections.
 
We have term limits - always have. They are called regular elections.

Which is generally what I think, except with Presidents. I don't want someone with free reign over our foreign policy and their finger on the button for 25 years.

Theoretically, Mubarak was elected. But he was elected time and time again. Granted, this isn't Egypt.
 
Hell I could be happy throwing out the whole re-election of a President, give him one 6 year or 8 year term, and that's it, one term.
 
Hell I could be happy throwing out the whole re-election of a President, give him one 6 year or 8 year term, and that's it, one term.

Good point, in such a situation you'd have guys spending less time campaigning and more time actually doing ****.
 
Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.

The XXII Amendment, as you know, was passed in order to keep a particular administration from mimicking a monarchy. The advantage that I see in the amendment is that, if the sitting president is lucky enough to receive a super majority in his second term, it becomes all in. A two term limit however keeps a president in line with the rest of the country, giving him his first term to introduce and attempt to pass his agenda; in the case of a mixed congress: being more the democratic approach.

I don't think that at the time the XXII Amendment was passed it was overblown. We must remember that WWI put an end to empire, but the crash of '29 reintroduced a new age of despots in Europe, and at the time, I'm sure that Americans wanted to take charge of their government to put any anxieties to rest.
 
The 22nd Amendment does a disservice to the country. If you get a good president you should be allowed to re-elect her or him as many times as you want as long as she remains healthy. It should be possible to disqualify a president from running again because of poor health. The 22nd Amendment was created in response to Roosevelt's winning a 4th term, despite being too unhealthy to complete it. Replace the 22nd with some kind of mandatory physical checkup.
 
Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?
Considering the likely outcome this November, one can only hope that's the case.
 
I dislike the 22nd ammendment, if you have an amazing leader and it's the will of the people they should be voted in as many times as the people want. FDR was an amazing leader and pushed our country to be the true super power that it is today. If Bill Clinton had a third and possibly 4th term we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are in today instead would probably still have surpluses each year and the economy would be thriving.

Edit- And yes I think the two term limit hinders the president to play it safe when the country really needs a leader not a compromiser and two face.
 
Last edited:
I like term limits for the presidency. I think one of the most important things George Washington ever did was decline to run for reelection for a third term.
 
I dislike the 22nd ammendment, if you have an amazing leader and it's the will of the people they should be voted in as many times as the people want. FDR was an amazing leader and pushed our country to be the true super power that it is today. If Bill Clinton had a third and possibly 4th term we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are in today instead would probably still have surpluses each year and the economy would be thriving.

Edit- And yes I think the two term limit hinders the president to play it safe when the country really needs a leader not a compromiser and two face.
Many people feel that the seeds for the current/recent recession were actually planted by Clinton.
 
Many believe it goes back as far as Reagan, but atleast we wouldn't have had the big bush tax cuts, Medicare part D, and likely wouldnt have invaded Iraq and stayed in Afghanistan for a shorter period under Clinton.
 
Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.

I have thought about this quite often and considered possibly a one term POTUS of 5 years or only allowing a run for re-election that is non consecutive.

I have not heard of any serious attempt to amend the 22nd amendment.
 
Last edited:
I would favor 4 2 year terms. 4 years is too long to be stuck with a crappy president, and they may preform better if reelection was every 2 years.
 
I would favor 4 2 year terms. 4 years is too long to be stuck with a crappy president, and they may preform better if reelection was every 2 years.

Hmmm it seems is not enough time to know and we would have to deal with elections every two years.
 
Hmmm it seems is not enough time to know and we would have to deal with elections every two years.

I'm fine with having a presidential election every 2 years if it means we have shorter terms for bad presidents. We have midterms anyway so I don't see it as adding much more of a burden on people.
 
Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.
I'm a big fan of the 22nd amendment. I have a negative opinion of most presidents, and would like to see them changed often.
 
I'm fine with having a presidential election every 2 years if it means we have shorter terms for bad presidents. We have midterms anyway so I don't see it as adding much more of a burden on people.

Shorter terms for a POTUS would be a disaster. Let me build a strawman for you:

In the Corporate world, a very popular item for CEO's is "Stock Options". On the surface, it seems like it would be great. It encourages CEOs to work for the company and have the company's best intrest in mind.... right? Well not always. How a stock option works, a CEO gets a guarantee to buy a share at a set price. If the stock price climbs, he buys the guaranteed number of shares at the lower price and he is way ahead. The problem is that if the CEO sacrifices the long term health of the company to get some short term profits (pretty easy to do) exercises his option, and then sells them at the higher price.... The CEO makes a killing and the company starts to run into issues because the long term plan is non-existant.

Same with a Presidency. If a President was in power for a very short time, he would only focus on what he could do NOW. The long term health of the nation would be an afterthought.
 
I'm fine with having a presidential election every 2 years if it means we have shorter terms for bad presidents. We have midterms anyway so I don't see it as adding much more of a burden on people.

Do you notice how Congressmen spend only half their terms doing actual ****, and the other half of the time they're constantly campaigning? That's what would happen if Presidents had 2 yr terms.
 
I'm fine with having a presidential election every 2 years if it means we have shorter terms for bad presidents. We have midterms anyway so I don't see it as adding much more of a burden on people.

The problem with that is that it means they NEVER get any actual work done, because they never actually stop campaigning.
 
I would favor 4 2 year terms. 4 years is too long to be stuck with a crappy president, and they may preform better if reelection was every 2 years.

I can sympathize with your feelings, but if we did that, then we would have perpetual campaigning, and we would have even worse political A.D.D. than we already have.

I dislike the 22nd amendment, if you have an amazing leader and it's the will of the people they should be voted in as many times as the people want. FDR was an amazing leader and pushed our country to be the true super power that it is today. If Bill Clinton had a third and possibly 4th term we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are in today instead would probably still have surpluses each year and the economy would be thriving.

Edit- And yes I think the two term limit hinders the president to play it safe when the country really needs a leader not a compromiser and two face.

I agree. My first choice would be to repeal the 22nd and replace it with a health checkup requirement before applying for re-election. My second choice would be to revise it to allow a president to serve up to 3 terms. My third choice would be to revise it to allow a president to serve up to two 6-year terms. We suffer from serious political A.D.D. In the words of a former professor of mine, "The interests of a nation don't change every 4 years."

If I thought it wouldn't be abused, I would favor some kind of recall system to get rid of presidents who engage in gross abuses of power. That's IF I thought it wouldn't be abused (because it would). If you want to see an example of the abuse of the recall process, look up local Omaha politics and the recall of Mayor Jim Suttle.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom