The 22nd Amendment of the United States of America should be repealed

1. Lack of Political IncentiveThe President is almost never focused on the needs of the people, especially if he is worrying about getting elected, for any term, be it third, fourth, fifth, or tenth. The so-called “needs of the people” have never been addressed unless it threatened the very foundations of the Government. Take, for example, the battle over African-American civil rights, and how long that took, or the battle over Vietnam at home. The Government rarely listens to the people at all. Obama, for a more modern example, loves to speak about equality and gay rights, but Guantanamo Bay remains open, and we are still in the Middle East. If we want to talk idealistic Democracy, then a good leader won’t taper off towards the end of his Presidency, because a good leader isn’t in it for the money, power, or the popularity contest. But, of course, he is in it for those reasons—thus, the eternal problem with our current state of Democracy continues.2. US Citizens’ Freedom to Vote Hindered/Your Rebuttal on my pointsIt is not irrelevant that Presidents historically haven’t wanted to or could have taken a third term. It is very relevant. How can you vote in a President who has Alzheimer’s, or who is, frankly, completely tired out. I haven’t tried to be President, but I have a feeling it’s not just about dodging shoes and sleeping at the ranch (unless you’re George Bush). It’s a very stressful, tiring job. It might be the most stressful job there is. Most Presidents are just done after a two terms. Your argument is therefore hamstrung by the fact that almost no president has ever wanted to run again. So what are you fighting for? That would be 225 years of Presidents, both great Presidents, and bad ones.3. The Lack of the 22nd Amendment Does Not Make Corrupt PresidentsYou have no historical proof to back this point up, and little logic. You say “Corruption lies in the character of the president, not the length of the term”, yet we can all say with certainty that we have voted in a President who said he would change things, and when the time came to vote for another President, we found that the last President didn’t actually change much of anything, therefore, proving that the President we thought was without corruption must have had some corruption from the beginning. You ignore the fact that Presidents have two identities, a public one, say, Obama playing basketball, or singing Al Green, or passing easy-to-pass laws that make him look good. Then there the other side, the one that keeps Guantanamo open, or the one who continues to dodge economic problems, who continues to stomp on liberties, ie: Snowden, intervention in Libya without congress, hires former Wall St. criminals, ie: Broderick Johnson. The transparent President is the impossible President. Other Rebuttals:The 22nd Amendment is not about Democratic checks and balances, those died a long time ago. It is about keeping an individual President from continuing to make bad decisions behind our back, or alternatively, keeping him from getting too big of an ego and doing something truly terrible, either with us knowing, or without.1930s German politics provide a possible outcome for current American politics. The Weimer Republic was a Government that made things worse and worse, Hitler was a man who promised things would get better, and he came from the people, not from the establishment. He was also a leader who kept a public demeanor that promised revolution and change, but also kept a private demeanor of harsh racism. His private beliefs were kept hidden from the world until it was much too late. I wouldn’t mind a leader who cleaned up the broken political system, but my want for a new leader must be tempered, because a man like Hitler could easily become a man like Hitler, if you get what I mean, which is why he must be restricted. Last Point:You seem to be assuming that the length of a Presidents rule is not related to his corruption, which is just illogical. The more one stays in office, the more connections he is bound to make, he is bound to sink deeper into his commitments, and he is bound to be met with more and more chances to take the "easy path" and become corrupt, and once a man makes a single choice to take say, a small politcal donation in exchange for some kind of favor, he'll be more and more ready to do it more.