Pros And Cons Of The 22nd Amendment

815 Words4 Pages
Until 1951, there was no law restricting the number of times the president of the United States could run for office. After the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment. Since its ratification, the highly controversial amendment has survived every attempted repeal. Contemporary presidents of both parties, President Regan and President Clinton, supported repealing or modifying the amendment whereas other presidents believed a repeal would result in political stagnation. While there are certain benefits of restricted term limits, the otherwise undemocratic 22nd Amendment should be repealed. David Karol, a proponent of repeal, argues first and foremost the amendment is undemocratic and considers it to be the “most offensive” aspect of the law. Presidential term limits reduce the public’s influence over the electoral process. Furthermore, the amendment is based solely on distrust and fear which historically does not make for good policy. In his argument, Karol cited historian Henry Steele Commager who suggested that the amendment was simply “posthumous vengeance” on President Roosevelt and the shortsighted partisan act resulted in bad policy. Simultaneously, the amendment does nothing to stop the expanding power of the executive. For example, in his first term, President Lyndon B. Johnson exaggerated the Gulf of Tonkin incident to work around the limitations of the office. Since the second half of the 20th century, the power of the president has

More about Pros And Cons Of The 22nd Amendment

Get Access