ToC Round One: The Twenty-Second Amendment should be Repealed

Regardless of the result, I trust this will be an informative experience for the both of us. -------- I will begin by rebutting Mr. Fournier's argument, then defending my own. ======== KRFournier: 'It is indicative of democracy" ======== Mr. Fournier begins his argument by asserting the democratic nature of the amendment. The passage of the amendment through the proper ratification process, he alleges, is "indicative of the people's choice. " On its head, this claim has two major problems. Firstly (1), close examination of the ratification process shows that it is not an indication of the people's choice. Secondly (2), even if it were indicative of the people's choice when it was passed in 1951, it does not necessarily reflect the views and desires of the people today. 1. The ratification process begins with the requirement of a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of congress. Once passed, an amendment is sent to each state legislature for approval. As Mr. Fournier correctly points out, three-fourths of the state legislatures must vote in favor. I hope the reader will take notice of who is left out of this process - the people. Therefore it cannot be said that the amendment is a reflection of the people's choice because the people were never given a say in the matter. Instead, it can only be said that the passage of the amendment is indicative of the federal and state legislatures' choice. (Source: . http://www.archives.gov...) 2. Even if we allow that it is a reflection of the people's choice (which I am not), that does not stop a new generation from attempting to express and enforce the new version of the people's will. Thomas Jefferson questioned this very principle in a letter to James Madison when he wondered "Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another. " Does one generation have the right to bind all of posterity? Jefferson ultimately concludes "'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;' that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. " So while it may be that the people chose in 1951 to limit the president to two terms (see above for the rebuttal to this point), future generations should certainly be able to open dialogue on the issue and, if they deem necessary, to overturn it. (Source: Jefferson to Madison, 6 Sept. 1789, paragraph 1: . http://teachingamericanhistory.org...) --------- Mr. Fournier, in claiming that the twenty-second amendment was "conceived and achieved" in a democratic manner (although it wasn't), confuses the limit placed on democracy as it relates to presidential elections and the supposedly democratic nature of the ratification process. Certainly the reader can conceive of a democratically enacted amendment that restricts democracy. If we allow that the ratification process was democratic (it wasn't) then that is what has occurred in this instance. Therefore, my point still stands that the twenty-second amendment runs counter to democratic principles because it limits the people's choice of presidents. ======= Jefferson and fixed terms ======= Mr. Fournier quotes Th. Jefferson: "if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life. " This quote is supposedly a representation of the fear of a president attaining a long term reign. However, Jefferson is speaking about limiting a single term to four years so as to require the president to have his service reaffirmed by the people (every four years). This falls far short of an endorsement of limiting a president to a set number of terms (let alone to only two terms). ====== Incumbent's Advantage ====== My opponent seems to distrust the people's ability to determine whether their chief executive is performing well or poorly. He claims that even a poorly performing incumbent has an advantage over a new challenger simply because he is better known. To support this he cites a claim that only 10 presidents have lost when running for a second term (the actual number is 11, Con's source omitted Teddy Roosevelt's failed run). While on face value this seems like a low number, when we include those who did not seek a second term (either by choice, or by failure to receive the party's nomination) we get a different picture. Below are the statistics: 43 distinct presidents (Cleveland served twice) Sought a second term: 27 (1) Lost a second term: 11 (2) 1. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland, Harrison McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. 2. Adams, Adams, Van Buren, Cleveland, Harrison, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter, Bush (Although not specifically stated, these numbers can be verified on: . http://en.wikipedia.org...) When we look at the cited number in this way we see that nearly half of the presidents who sought a second term lost their bid, rather than the one-fourth implied by the citation. This supports my claim that the American people are fully capable of deciding whether or not a president has served well enough to deserve a second term. ------ ====== Defense of My Argument ====== ------ ===== Counter to Democratic Principles ===== 1. Con attacks my position as being one that ignores aspects of democratic principles that I prefer. As I showed in the very first section in this round, the amendment was not ratified with democratic principles; and that if it were, that does not limit us from overturning the laws and amendments of past generations. 2. Mr. Fournier claims, in his second paragraph of this section, that the president has no counter balancing voice. On this point I would beg to differ. The president has advisers, a cabinet, and literally thousands of other people within the administration. Is my opponent claiming that none of them can offer a counter balance to the president's voice? Even if we grant that none within a president's administration offers a counter balancing voice (which I don't), the president still must go to the people every four years to be re elected. This forces him to continue considering the people's will. In this way, the people offer one counter balance to both the president's voice and power. ===== Harmful Effects ===== In rebutting this section, Mr. Fournier assumes that the president considers the welfare of his party when he makes decisions. If this were the case, no president would make unpopular decisions so as to protect the welfare of his party. History has shown that this is not the case. Not all presidents put party before the people, and not all presidents will put the party before personal interest. ===== Long Term Planning ===== I concede on this point. My opponent has convinced me of the folly of advancing this point. He is correct, any worthwhile long term goal should be able to continue without a charismatic president. ------- I would like to close by once again thanking my opponent for his most able of responses - even convincing me on the last point. I wish him good luck in the final two rounds.