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Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed as an impediment to the people's democratic expression?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)
Although I personally believe that change is a good thing (although it is often hard to accept) I think that the 22nd Amendment should be repealed. If the public, as a whole, is happy with way the president is running the country I see no reason why they should not be allowed to re-elected. Think of the government as a business (which it is) many, if not all, of the leaders of companies are in place for longer than 8 years because they are doing a good job. No reason for the government to be any different. It is not in Congress. Why should the office of president be any different? It should not.
ReplyDeleteThe 22 amendment should not be repealed although it may not always be popular there is a good reason for leaders to step down at the appointed time. If presidents had the opption to stay in power they could be become tyrants, and never leave office.
ReplyDeleteRemember to identify yourself.
ReplyDeleteI think that the twenty second amendment should not be repealed because two terms is plenty of time for a president to begin their plan of action for the country. Furthermore, like stated about during times of war sometime it is not always positive for the current president to continue being in office because sometimes a new prospective is needed. Change is always a good thing even though people are scared of it and sometimes if one person remains in office they could turn into sort of a tyrant.
ReplyDelete-Brianna Blevins
My thought of it all is if a great majority of people feel that whoever is in office should remain than let it be. Agreeing with Michelle, if the President at the time is doing a good job let him/her continue with it. With almost anything in America, if we feel that a person is doing a good job that's usually the last person we want to sit out.
ReplyDeleteThe 22nd amendment should not be repealed. I believe the founding fathers wanted a citizen government. Civil servants were meant to do their civic duty, then go home and get a 'real' job. This was not meant to be a career. In fact, not only do I think it shouldn't be repealed, I think it should be expanded to Congress. I can't imagine what George Washington would think of the career congressmen we have now.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think I would have loved having Reagan for a third term!
I feel we should do away with the 22nd amendment. It was suppose to be there as a checks and balance. However, it seems to be a game now! A game of how can I stall and make more contraversy for this party? As they have for us in the past. In President, Obama speech, I believe on CNN one night, he stated that he knew what was being done using the filibuster to stop new programs, laws, appointments, etc. Because the democratic party had done it to the republican when they had the majority. I can only hope that they listened to the words of Rodney King, from the CA riots..."can we all just get along"?
ReplyDeleteI think that the amendment should not be repealed. I think it is best to have change. I think the time they have during their terms is only fair.
ReplyDeleteI believe in maintaining the Constitution. I believe the Founding Fathers realized the potential of multiple re-elections and that they intended that the people and Electors choose, not set limits that would intentially expire a president's term. With a bi-cameral government, checks and balances are in place to prevent controls in the executive branch and term limits are not necessary. /Chandra
ReplyDeleteI believe it is good to have institutional change every 4-8 years in the election of the President. People will still get to exercise their votes, just for different Presidential candidates. We elect a President through the Electoral College that does not necessarily reflect the voting of the majority of the popular vote. Time changes, history changes, and so should Presidents, so that the way we do things does not become monotonous or repetitive, and get too comfortable in the way things get done.
ReplyDeleteI believe there should be reform from the Electoral College to the direct election in which every vote would carry it’s own weight. The choice for Presidency by the Electoral College does not guarantee that the winner would also be the same as that of the popular vote. My vote does not count for anything if the Electorate chosen does not vote my way, but rather for another party. With the direct vote, one would have more of an incentive to go out and cast their vote for the candidate they want to win. I believe my vote would mean more to me, by casting it directly for the person I choose.
-Jennifer