ToC Round One: The Twenty-Second Amendment should be Repealed

I'm glad to accept my first tournament debate if not a bit intimidated by my opponent's excellent track record. That being said, I think there is a strong case against the resolution. ====== MY ARGUMENT ====== The 22nd amendment passed through Congress in 1947 after Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to four terms, the first president to successfully acquire more than two terms (though not the first to attempt it). [1] Some critics argue that a jealous Republican party, which had gained control of both houses, pushed the bill through for personal gain. Motives aside, it still required bipartisan support to acquire the two-thirds votes needed in Congress followed by the three-fourths ratification by the states. This is no small feat, and the fact that it was accomplished is indicative of the people's choice. When the 22nd amendment was written, H.R. Representative #17 wrote the following annotation: "By reason of the lack of a positive expression upon the subject of the tenure of the office of President, and by reason of a well-defined custom which has risen in the past that no President should have more than two terms in that office, much discussion has resulted upon this subject. Hence it is the purpose of this . . . [proposal] . . . to submit this question to the people so they, by and through the recognized processes, may express their views upon this question, AND IF THEY SHALL SO ELECT, they may . . . thereby set at rest this problem." [2] (emphasis added) This statement contradicts any argument against the 22nd amendment on the grounds that it violates democratic principles, for it was a decision that was democratically conceived and achieved in the first place. Now, it might be argued that times have changes and what was good for us then is now unhealthy. However, as this debate will reveal, the arguments today haven't changes much. FDR showed that a president could position himself in such a way as to attain long term reign. The fear may seem over exaggerated, but it was a fear recognized as far back as Thomas Jefferson who wrote, "if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life." [3] It might be easy to dismiss such fears as irrational, but to do so would ignore the multiple factors of a president's popularity combined with the incumbency advantage. People can only choose a presidential candidate they know, and no candidate is more known than the incumbent president. An incumbent president gains a "6-10% edge in the voting booth." [4] It is very common for people to vote for what they know, even if they aren't wholly satisfied with the current administration, only because they are afraid the less known candidates could be worse. Only 10 presidents have lost when running for a second term. Thus, it is not wholly irrational to imagine one person holding the presidential office for the remainder of their life. Term limits bring balance to this country's leadership. The 22nd amendment aligns perfectly with the U.S. Constitution in that it brings power to the people, through a republic, while tempered in such a way as to avoid tyranny of the majority. Even if a president is popular, he or she cannot possibly represent the diversity contained within our borders. Term limits ensure a new voice of the people is regularly voted into leadership. Therefore, I firmly stand in opposition that the 22nd amendment should be repealed. ====== REBUTTAL ====== 1. Counter to Democratic Principles It is true that term limits run counter to will of the common people, but it is equally true that other democratic principles are what canonized the limits in the first place. My opponent should be more specific, since term limits do not run counter to ALL democratic principles, but only to those he seems to prefer. Heads of state need a counter balance since they represent one voice in a role of high authority. I'm not talking about checks and balances, which control one's power. I'm talking about counter balancing one's voice. No elected official speaks for everyone. Every U.S. Senator is counter balanced by opposing voices within the Senate. However, there is no counter balancing voice for the president. The president represents one view for their entire term. Term limits ensure a new voice is brought into the presidency. If anything, this preserves democratic principles rather than destroying them. 2. Harmful Effects Many factors contribute to a president's effectiveness. An effective president has a good relationship with his party, who ideally controls the legislature. An effective president garners public popularity. Often, unplanned foreign or domestic events play into a president's aptitude, the outcomes of which show his/her mettle. To place the blame squarely on a lack of motivation is short sighted and amounts to a straw man defense. Furthermore, the whole idea that the president loses motivation is absurd when you consider the president's more pressing concern: his/her political party. A second term president is still motivated to leave behind a pleasant legacy, one that will encourage the people to vote into office another candidate from the same party--especially one eager to carry on his former colleague's good work. In short, there is no reason other than pure cynicism to expect a second term president to just throw in the towel. 3. Impedes Long Term Planning Any worthwhile long term goal can always be carried on by the president's political party and, people willing, his/her successor. It could be argued then, that any policy that relies more on one president's charisma than on popular support is a flimsy long term goal unworthy of pursuit in the first place. Indeed, term limits, if anything, force a president to "cut the fat" and focus on worthy long term goals that the people can get behind. It fosters better planning rather than wasteful trial and error over a long period of time. ====== CONCLUSION ====== Our government is run by people, not one person. The 22nd amendment was our nation's response to the growing concern that given enough circumstances, one person could become an elected dictator. As extreme or even unlikely an outcome it might be, the nation still spoke loudly and clearly in 1951 when ratifying this amendment. The problems rectified by the amendment half a century ago carry the same potential today. Repeal the 22nd amendment, and run the risk of one voice ruling the country for a decade or more. The founding fathers sought to create a government free from deified kings and despot dictators. Let's keep it that way. ====== SOURCES ====== 1. http://www.usconstitution.net... 2. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://books.google.com...