ToC Round One: The Twenty-Second Amendment should be Repealed

--------- Twenty-Second Amendment: The amendment that prohibits the U. S. President to serve more than two terms. It also prohibits him from running for a second term if he has served more than two years of his successor's term. The full text of the amendment can be found below: (source: . http://www.usconstitution.net... Repeal: 1. To revoke or rescind, especially by an official or formal act. 2. Obsolete To summon back or recall, especially from exile. (source: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) ---------- Resolved, That the twenty-second amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed. ---------- In this debate I will introduce at least threemajor reasons why the amendment should be repealed. 1) It is counter to U. S. democratic principles (note: we are not a democracy, but we operate under democratic principles); 2) Limiting the President to two terms can have harmful effects on U. S. interests; and 3) It impedes the ability to inact long-term plans. I reserve the right to introduce more arguments later in the debate should the necessity arise. ====== Counter to Democratic Principles ====== Few would doubt that the U. S. operates under democratic principles. The twenty-second amendment is counter to these principles because it forces a limit on the people's will. The American people have their choices, in essence, restricted. This relates to the topic of the twenty-second amendment in that it limits the people's ability to choose its head of state. If they find a good chief executive that makes them happy, they ought to be able to ask him (via re-election) to continue to serve beyond two terms. There is no valid reason for a good president to be limited to two terms, should the people desire his continued service. The American people have shown on multiple occasions that they are more than competent enough to limit a bad president to no more terms than he/she is in good standing. Evidence of this comes in the form of the many presidents that have only served one term (Ford, Carter, Bush Sr. , to name only the most recent); and presidents that have run for three terms and lost (Grant, and T. Roosevelt). Clearly the American people can decide for themselves if a president has overstayed his welcome. ====== Harmful Effects ====== The moment a president reaches 'lame duck' status, the public will is no longer an important consideration in policy development. He is no longer dependent on staying in the public's good graces for his continued employment. He has no motive to consider the public will. The potential for mischief should be clear to the reader. Term Limits also give the president incentive to take advantage of his office while he can, especially once in the 'Lame Duck' phase (read: half of a two-term presidency). This could come in the form of partisan appointments, giving out fat contracts to friends or party donors, or other such nefarious activity. ====== Impedes Long Term Planning ====== Limiting a president to two terms forcing him/her to focus on short term goals rather than long term ones. This gives he/she incentive to look for short term gains that, while it may be politically expedient for the party in the short term, it may have negative consequences for the nation in the long term. Additionally, it limits politicians' ability to see long term plans through to a successful conclusion (should the long-term goal coincide with the public will, of course). ====== CONCLUSION ====== Because the twenty-second amendment is counter to our democratic principles and it limits people's choice; and because it can have harmful effects, like divorcing presidents from the public will during 'lame duck' status; and because it encourages short-term plans at the expense of long-term ones: the resolution, that the twenty-second amendment should be repealed, is affirmed. Thank you.