The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

Thank you Blade for this debate. It has been great! Final round! I. Redundant/limits Con claims “that without term limits, there's no objective standard for when the elections could be held. ” This is a ridiculous claim as first… we are talking specifically about the XXII Amendment as well as elections are held independent of the amendment. As mentioned previously in this debate the amendment did not pass until the 1950’s. We had an objective standard then and still do have one for when elections are to be held. Con claims “he could do anything in his power to stay in office, as there'd be no obligation for him to leave by law. ” Again, as with the last claim; This is entirely untrue and entirely off topic for the debate at hand. Prior to the XXII Amendment there was a clear indication and obligation by law for when one is to leave office. The argument stands that this amendment is redundant and limits the sovereignty of the people. II. The best person for the job Con claims “Again, my counter-plan covers this with the fact that we can amend the amendment to keep the best person for the job in power - if and only if, he or she is truly the best person for the job in the eyes of American citizens. ” In part his plan does this, though largely would prevent such an action from taking place. Repealing the amendment would ensure that the best person for the job would not be disqualified based on having experience. The argument stands that The repeal of the XXII amendment would keep experienced candidates in consideration. III. The 22nd Amendment exists for our own Protection Con clings to his two points… Though, both are mitigated by my plan and his counterplan. The check on power as already shown is redundant. Con says “We passed the amendment because of that precedent being broken, we feared of what might happen, and thus created that amendment. ” Perhaps, but cons plan as mine would have allowed FDR to have done what he did. So this contention is mitigated as both our plans would allow this supposed “harm. ” IV. Counter-plan Con argued in this debate that “We have every right to amend the amendment to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term. ” My opponent has offered a counter plan to allow us to amend the amendment to allow us overriding its restrictions. If such a plan is truly with merit, surely this shows the redundant and unnecessary nature of the restriction. In conclusion: The XXII Amendment is largely redundant. It limits the rights of people to elect who they wish. It removes experience from selection. Con has conceded that these harms are real and has presented a plan to amend the amendment to allow a way around these harms in certain circumstances. Con has argued “We have every right to amend the amendment to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term. ” I go one further. We do have every right to amend, but we also have the right to repeal. Con’s plan allows the harm to remain and only offers a potential way to deal with that harm. My plan to repeal removes the harm. That is the choice in this debate…. Cons plan that at best mitigates and at worst undermines your right to vote for an experienced President and my plan that respects those rights. The choice is clear.