ToC Round One: The Twenty-Second Amendment should be Repealed

K. R. Fournier, as usual, is a shining example of what this website is about - solid argument presented in a clear and courteous manner. Regardless of the outcome, this has been an informative and enjoyable experience. I would be honored to debate Mr. Fournier anytime in the future. I wish him all the luck in his closing arguments, and the tournament as a whole. --------- I will respond to each of his points in the order listed. ====== History Affirms ====== Mr. Fournier correctly points out that the ideal of our Federal Republic is for political representatives (both federal and state) to represent the voice of the people. He attempts to use this to present my argument as contradictory. Reality, however, may not fall perfectly in line with this ideal. As we have discussed, sometimes a representative does not have the interest of his constituency in mind. Sometimes he is more interested in personal, partisan, or private enterprise concerns. This will have a tendency to reduce the power of some of the people's voice. As a result, many people 's views will not be adequately represented. I must also add that it is not a contradiction to say that while representatives occasionally stray from their constituents, the people are competent enough to "correctly" choose their leaders. Furthermore, to my knowledge, no state held a referendum or town hall meetings to address the issue. The "people's choice" was not consulted. Representatives may not have known their constituents' views on the matter. At any rate, this point is irrelevant since my opponent has conceded the next point. ------------ I am glad that my esteemed opponent agrees that past generational decisions do not bind future ones. This effectively negates his point that the amendment cannot run counter to democratic principles because it was passed through the ratification process. ====== Prevent Indefinite Reign ====== Mr. Fournier suggests that anxiety over indefinite rule has existed since the nation's founding. I would say the anxiety has been over permanent, or life-long, rule rather than indefinite - but this is an insignificant distinction. If the people were anxious over indefinite rule and wished to limit the president to two terms, they are certainly competent enough achieve this. After all, they were able to do so without legislative intervention for the century and a half before the twenty-second amendment. So why bind future generations to the anxiety of one? Mr. Fournier has only shown that there has historically been anxiety over indefinite reign. He has not shown why indefinite reign is necessarily a negative thing. Point negated. ====== The People cannot be Trusted to make the Better Choice ====== Mr. Fournier re-introduced the incumbency advantage. On that point I will redirect the reader to my second round where I showed the incumbency advantage to be less powerful than Con and his source suggest. He deftly argues that the people cannot be trusted to make the best choice because they usually vote based on issues like religion, party, misinformation, and popularity. However, this misunderstands what it means to be a representative of the people. If the people find such religious or social issues to be the most important, then they are fully justified in selecting a president who reflects these views. Con will have you believe that these issues are not related to performance. But if the people find his performance on these issues to be more important than other issues (say, foreign or economic policy), then their selection is fully justified. I must respond to one more point made by Mr. Fournier. He says that "there is no consistent rationale for believing that the people are capable of voting for the 'better' president. " I have brought up on several occasions in this debate just such a consistent rational for trust in the people's competency. The people have chosen, on their own accord, to limit all presidents prior to FDR to only two terms. ====== Tyranny of the Majority ====== The majority has ample checks and balances already in place in our system. Any tyrannical or oppressive position taken by the people is subject to Judicial Review, whereby the Supreme Court's duty is to protect the minority's rights from the majority. The core of his point in this section is that other public opinions must have a chance to be represented. There are several things wrong with this position. First, there is nothing to stop other public opinions from their chance at being represented in the executive branch. Any opposition can run for the office. Second, if a public opinion happens to be supported by the majority, then the next candidate who most closely resembles that view will be elected anyway, thus rendering this concern invalid. ----- ===== My Argument ===== ----- 1. Counter to Democratic Principles. My opponent's concerns here seem to be unjustified. He admits that the President is a representative of the majority position. This is consistent with one of the major principles of our government - majority rule (with checks and balances to prevent tyranny of the majority, as discussed above). Again, if the president steps down and the majority voice is indeed the majority voice, then the next president will be a representative of that same national majority. The people should have the ability to keep a good and effective representative of their majority voice. As I mentioned, the majority voice is likely to carry the following election as well. However, later representatives of this voice may be less effective. The choice should belong to the people, not the legislatures of 1951. 2. Harmful Effects Mr. Fournier again attempts to paint my position as contradictory. The point is that some presidents could find their lame duck status to be an opportunity to consider personal, private, or partisan interests above the interests of the people. Obviously not all presidents will react this way. No one has argued otherwise. That some will react this way is a possibility that should be avoided. Allowing presidents to run for future terms requires them to remain in good standing with the public. ====== CLOSING REMARKS ====== Throughout this debate Mr. Fournier has failed to live up to his burden. He has had two rounds to show why allowing presidents to run for more than two terms will have negative consequences. His main point is that it could lead to indefinite reign. However, indefinite reign is just another way of saying a lack of term limits (because without a limit on terms there is indefinite reign). In other words, he is saying that a lack of term limits is bad because it lacks term limits. The circular nature of this argument should be apparent to the reader. His concern that the people are incompetent to elect their executive representative is contradicted by history. Only FDR, who has been consistently considered by most historians to be among the top three presidents, has been elected to more than two terms. His only piece of evidence on this point has been an alleged "incumbency advantage", which I have shown to be anything but a sweeping advantage. His final concern, that the majority will oppress the minority, is also unfounded. Our system has checks and balances in place to protect the minority from the majority.