The 22nd Amendment of the United States of America should be repealed

1. "The 22nd Amendment protects against historically proven corruption."This contention actully confirms what I mentioned in my third argument; that corruption is directly related to a character flaw in the president, not the length of the term. In the case of Adolf Hitler, it was his own inner character flaws which made him to be the notorious leader of whom we compare perceived evil government officials to date.Secondly, comparing German politics to US politics is comparing apples to oranges; Germany runs politics differently from the way the US runs politics. And, the scenario that Germany faced post WW1 is by no means similar to the scenario the US faces today. "The terms of the Treaty of Versailles ordered that Germany had to pay huge sums in reparations to the Allies. In 1921, as Germany could not pay, French and Belgian troops invaded and occupied the Ruhr to take goods and raw materials. During 1923 Germany printed more money to pay striking workers. Hyperinflation resulted, wiping out the value of savings."[1].In the US, there is only a recession, which, historically, happens about every few decades (I believe the last one was in the 70's). To say that because the US is in a recession again means that any president running for a third term will become a next-generation Adolf Hitler is a little extreme, if not arguably rediculous, to say the least. Even through the Great Depression in the United States, when the 22nd Amendment was not ratified, no such dictator came to power in the United States at all (not to mention the Great Depression was far, far worse than the economic state of the US today).2. Historically, few Presidents have wanted to, or actually could, take a third term.This is a tad irrelevant; whether or not the President wants to run for a third term is not so much the point. The point is, if the President wants to run for a third term, and US citizens use their US freedom to vote the said president into the third term, then the President ought to be capable of continuing his/her Presidency. If the President does not want run again, then that's that. But if the former, then yes, the President ought to run for President again and the US citizens ought to have the right to vote him/her into office.3. The Amendment keeps the human element at bay.I'm glad my opponent brought this up. On a well-intededly sarcastic note, I might add that the 22nd Amendment sure didn't keep the human element at bay for Richard Nixon, but I digress.Although still a good point, I would like to extend my argument that corruption is not so much the result of the length of the Presidential term, but moreso the character of the President him/herself. Another point I'd like to add is that, in the event that the President did go awry, there are checks and balances in the US government which would solve the problem. Article ll, Section 4 of the US Constitution states that:"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."[2]And in the case of Richard Nixon, we had the press, which kept the government in check - so all which would be necessary is for there to be a freedom of the press. And, lo and behold:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."(First Amendment of the US Constitution)[3][1] - http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...[2] - http://www.archives.gov...[3] - http://www.archives.gov...