ToC Round One: The Twenty-Second Amendment should be Repealed

====== DEFENSE OF MY ARGUMENTS ====== 1. History affirms the 22nd amendment In any issue, serious scholarship should give history an honest treatment. To approach the events of 1951 as though they don't matter (because they were allegedly undemocratic) or are irrelevant (because yesterday's decisions ought not to bind today's decisions) places society in danger of repeating past mistakes. I contend that history still has something to contribute on this matter. When I said JBlake was right in asserting that past generations should not bind the current generation, I only meant that it would be irrational to say "the past generation already decided, so case closed. " This is equally as foolish as saying, "the past is irrelevant and we should make the decision without consulting history. " Moreover, JBlake engages in non sequitur when concluding that my concurring with him "effectively negates [my] point that the amendment cannot run counter to democratic principles. " History does not resolve this debate with inerrant absolution, but it can and should inform the decision. FDR acquiring four terms created a real-world scenario that got people second guessing the Constitution. With overwhelming majority, the amendment passed both Senate and the ratification process. This is not to be taken lightly anymore than it is to be taken as gospel. If the nation was so compelled to act then, it would be prudent to consider their reasons with sincerity. JBlake argues that it is logically possible that the people chose the "correct" state leaders yet still were not accurately represented in the ratification process. So be it, but the sword has two edges. This means the people can choose incorrect representation. If this is true, then term limits help prevent those that might take advantage of the public to maintain power. In short, for the very reasons JBlake doubts the ratification process, he should also doubt his own position. 2. Term limits prevent indefinite reign JBlake argues that the people adequately prevented indefinite reign leading up to FDR. Well, this is partially true, since in some cases leaders that could have achieved a third term refused to do so out of tradition. That being said, indefinite reign--though unlikely--is still possible given the right circumstances and knowhow. This is precisely why the 22nd amendment was ratified. Though such a case might be extremely rare, even one case might prove detrimental. Is indefinite reign of one president really all that bad, as JBlake asks? If not, then this debate is a waste of time. Indeed, indefinite reign is undesirable for many reasons. First, it's possible--however rare--for a president to take advantage of circumstances, incumbency, and other factors to manipulate the people's choice in his/her favor. Furthermore, any president represents a single majority voice, which should not be permitted to be favored indefinitely. So, when JBlake says I have not shown why indefinite reign is a negative thing, he's either being dishonest or presenting a red herring. My entire argument attempts to show why indefinite reign should be prevented at all costs. 3. The people cannot be trusted to make the better choice JBlake argues that the people should be allowed to vote according to their ideologies, convictions, etc. over performance credentials. After all, if the people want a religious leader, let them have one, right? This completely misses my point. I was not arguing that voting to religious convictions, for example, is necessarily wrong in and of itself. My point was that passions tend to cloud the thinking, and this presents an avenue through which a President can control the outcome of an election. That is, the people cannot be completely trusted to make an informed decision, and term limits force the people to start anew. For example, a poll showed that more people believed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in 2006 (50%) than they did in 2004 (36%) despite the many reports that argued just the opposite. WMDs were never found. This is but one example of how one administration can keep the trust of the people through deception. If one administration can do this, why not another? It would be unwise to lift term limits entirely when it clearly prevents repeated abuses such as these. . http://www.worldpublicopinion.org... 4. Tyranny of the majority JBlake dismisses this contention has invalid. First, he says that views opposing the majority public opinion are free to run for office. However, such candidates cannot possibly win due to being both opposed to the popular opinion and pitted against incumbent rule. Second, he says that all a candidate has to do to replace the incumbent president is to closely align with public opinion. Okay then, so why are term limits so bad? If there is always someone to align to public opinion, then there is no rational necessity for repealing the 22nd amendment. ====== REBUTTALS ====== 1. Counter to Democratic Principles My opponent's only argument is that "the choice should belong to the people. " I have effectively shown that the people are not necessarily to be trusted in all matters. That is why our nation was founded as a republic, not a strict democracy. Not every person has the education, information, or even motivation to choose effectively. So, while the 22nd amendment runs counter to pure democratic principles, it is fully in line with a democratic republic. 2. Harmful Effects JBlake states, "Allowing presidents to run for future terms requires them to remain in good standing with the public. " He does not address the possibility that such "good standing" can be manipulated or fabricated, as exampled in the WMD issue of the Bush administration. His platform stands on the assumption that politicians are too honest or too incapable of manipulating (however slightly) elections--an assumption only I have addressed in this debate. ====== CLOSING STATEMENT ====== The 22nd amendment is not a major stumbling block to democracy. The people are not prevented from choosing, only limited in a small degree in their choices. This is hardly detrimental when we consider that people do not always vote with sound reason. Term limits brings into balance the failures of the people and the ambitions of politics. The 22nd amendment does not prevent sound policies or effective leadership. Because of history's insight, the rare possibility of indefinite reign, the untrustworthiness of the people's choice, the threat of majority tyranny, and the fact that democratic hindrance in marginal at best, I firmly negate the resolution that the 22nd amendment should be repealed.