The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

I would accept the burden of proof Con claims that I have to “show why we should change the current Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment. ” Though Con has presented a counter plan, splitting the burden between he and I. Rebuttals:Con contends that “The 22nd Amendment Exists for our own Protection. ”Several checks exists outside of this amendment that restrict indefinite power. Indeed the legislative branch has the ability to impeach and remove a president from office, also as already mentioned in last round, voting is the primary power by which the people check the power of the executive. Thus, as I concluded in my opening arguments this amendment is largely redundant and does more to check the power of the people than the power of the executive. Con contends that “Part of our effort (in the US revolution from Britain) to never allow such a thing to happen again came in the form of our 22nd Amendment. One that ensures that we never allow a single individual to grow so powerful that they'd actually be able to negatively affect our ability to live. ”The 22nd amendment was not passed until 1951. Surely my opponent is not implying that in 1951, almost 200 years from the revolution, we finally found a way to protect ourselves from the tyranny of an English King. This ends Con’s only contention. This argument does not refute even slightly the fact that this amendment limits the power of the people, and only serves to show the redundancy of the amendment. Thus the impact of this argument is virtually nonexistent. Con then presents a counter plan. Con here essentially argues that if the people decided we had a president that should serve another term we could amend the constitution to allow it. He states “We have every right to amend the amendment to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term. ”While amending is not the same as repealing my opponents reasoning in support of amending is an endorsement of my entire argument. We do have the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term. This right, that both Con and I agree we the people have, is being subverted by the 22nd amendment of the constitution. Conclusion:Thus we see that con’s rebuttals are hollow, in fact his counter plan accepts the premise of my arguments. Now the debate is between…Amending the Constitution to allow people the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term. ”or,repeal of the XXII amendment allowing people the the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office if the people so choose. This choice becomes even easier as con has already conceded that “We do have the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term. ” Con concedes that the people have a right to elect a president that has served previously if they so choose. This debate is between my plan which respects the rights of the people, and con’s plan that at best mitigates that right and at worst subverts it. The repeal of the XXII amendment would keep experienced candidates in consideration, allow our Democratic Republic to function as intended via elections, and allow Americans to decide for themselves. Therefore, the XXII Amendment should be repealed.