The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

Rebuttals:I. Concentration of Power & Incumbency AdvantagesCon claims “As it is now, the President has no comparable counter-balance.” As laid out in the U.S. Constitution there are many checks and balances in place to “counter-balance” the power of the President. (1) In fact, while my opponent cites Nixon as an example of what happens when a President abuses power, He is also referencing perhaps one of the best instances of a Presidents power being checked and balanced. Watergate ruined Nixon’s political career. Had he not resigned he very likely would have been impeached and removed from office. In addition to checks and balances, it is harder than ever for those in position of power to hide abuses in our day. Virtually every person has a video/voice recording device. A politician running for office can’t hardly have a private conversation without being recorded let alone abuse power. (2)Con claims incumbency advantages. The issue with this contention is that while there are some incumbency advantages, the impact is tied to the assumption that Presidential Incumbents will continue to run for office. History shows us a different trend. Before the XXII Amendment and accounting for the first 175 years of this country, only one President ever served more than 2 terms. Con also claims that Super Pacs effect incumbency as well. As Presidential Candidates are likely to be backed by one of the two major parties, it is implied that both sides will have super pacs that support them. Thus we cons argument summed up as if a President chooses to run a third term (which only happened once in 175 years), and if said person decides to hand out political favors, and if they strengthen corporate interest, and if they successfully get re-elected, then concentration of power and incumbency might be a potential problem. I don’t know about you but that is a lot of if’s. This argument is buried in assumptions making the supposed harm highly unlikely. Not very convincing. II. Governing ExpertiseAgain this argument makes the assumption that a president who has served two terms will continue to not just run, but win. Our nation is entirely different from Cuba for two reason, sheer size and level of education. Term limits for president can be done away with and people will still be able to have gain leadership and similar experience serving in other roles of government. We have at least 50 State Governors, 435 members of Congress, and past politicians that are gaining experience. It also seems foolish to argue that governing expertise goes down unless we eliminate those with experience from serving. III. Slippery SlopeThis argument comes down to a handful of bare assertions. My opponent uses another if scenario that if Clinton or Reagan had ran for and been elected for a third term perhaps it would be likely to be plagued with ethical and legal problems. My opponent has not provided any real evidence that shows this to be likely if at all plausible. IV. The quest for legacyCon argues there is an “intrinsic” benefit to the amendment in question because “it can serve as a motivator for 2nd term Presidents to accomplish something great before their time is up.” This is true with or without the amendment. In the hypothetical scenario that a President is coming up on the end of his/her second term this quest for legacy will be present regardless of the plan. If a President is running again, they will want to be able to point back and say “see, look what I accomplished.” If they are not running they will say the same thing. All Presidents, regardless of their plans to continue serving or not, include leaving a legacy. Whether serving 4 years 8 years or 40 years there is an intrinsic desire to build a legacy. This contention is entirely independent of the XXII Amendment. V. There is no current obligation to do soCon claims that because a majority is in favor of term limits there is no obligation to repeal this amendment. To this I have a few questions? If a majority were in favor of slavery would there be a moral or legally bound obligation to address it? If a majority were in favor of murder would there be a moral or legally bound obligation to address it? My point is that a majority support does not constitute moral, legal, or what should be. The fact remains that this amendment is a violation of our natural rights and attacks the sovereignty of the people. That sovereignty must be protected even from the majority. Who am I to tell Blade who he may not vote for? Who is DDO to tell Blade who he should not vote for?Conclusion: My opponent’s contentions assume more than infer. Aside from this none of thesecontentions even present harm near as detrimental to our society as the XXII Amendment poses. I have demonstrated that it is right for the people of the United States to be sovereign. Any other option is tyranny. To add insult to injury, this amendment keeps experience out of office. We clearly see that if this amendment is repealed all issues listed are resolved.The XXII Amendment is in conflict with core principles and harms our society. Therefore, the XXII Amendment should be repealed. Sources: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://www.motherjones.com...