The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

I. "We the People"Con contended this point by referencing history. Indeed President Washington did set a precedent. There is no reason to believe that many Presidents would not continue to follow suit if the XXII Amendment were repealed. In fact history shows it likely that they will, as it was followed for hundreds of years without the amendment. Thus this amendment is not necessary for what con desires. Con claims that “the majority voted to return to that precedent. ”Note that the XXII Amendment was not a return to anything. It was a new addition entirely. Term limits could not be returned to as they had not existed. Con argues that because the majority seems to support term limits that it cannot be argued that such an amendment is a violation against “We the people(s)” sovereignty. This is a non-sequitur. A majority can in fact vote for and establish what is called the tyranny of the majority. Con attempts to widen my burden of proof suggesting that I must show a case where a president has desired to seek a third term and the people desired it. This is nonsense, as it was against the law for any such a president to do so. I am not contesting that the XXII amendment is the law. Rather that it should no longer be one. Aside from this the people have desired many Presidents including Washington to run for more terms. Even in con’s round two he contends that perhaps Clinton or Reagen would have run if the amendment had not been in place and perhaps won. Thus con concedes this possibility. The historical fact that we did have a President who did run for a third term and successfully was reelected shows that the people in that case desired it. In conclusion, each person in our republic is protected under the Constitution. In fact our government is established in such a way that would prohibit both tyrannical government and tyranny of the majority. The XXII Amendment is the majority dictating to the minority who they may or may not vote for and is thus a violation of the minority’s rights and limits their power and ability to vote for whomever they choose. II. Sovereignty and the power of votingI don’t contest that both voting a President in office for a third term, and the passage of the XXII amendment where the desires of the people. I am arguing that the later causes harm. It violates and weakens the people’s ability to exercise their sovereignty. People need the power and sovereignty restored that the tyranny of the majority has removed via this amendment. III. The function and impact of the XXII amendmentCon seems to misunderstand my argument here stating that “While an 80 year old mechanic might have the most experience, does he have the ability to perform the duties required? ” This is obviously not what I am arguing. I have not once suggested that experience makes the best candidate for President. Though I have argued that disqualifying someone from consideration for having experience is ludicrous. As con argues people retire when they lack ability. Should not a Two term President be able to decide if he is ready to retire, should not the people be able to determine if he is fit for the job? In Conclusion:Thanks to Blade-of-Truth for this rematch. It has been a great debate. Why you should vote for me:1: “We the People” should have the sovereignty restored to us in our voting rights. 2: The XXII Amendment harms that sovereignty3: Removing someone from consideration due to experience is ludicrous. 4: Removal of the Amendment provides solvency. In other words, the XXII Amendment is harmful to society and repeal is the way to stop that harm.