The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

In this round, I will focus solely on rebutting Pro's arguments from R2, and will then utilize the final round for addressing his counter-arguments to my own R2. I. "We the People"Pro is correct in that our government was a radical change from those that preceded it. One of those key differences was made a reality during the end of President Washington's second term. At that point in time, our President made the decision to step down from the Presidency to preserve the very fact that America was different from the tyrannical monarchy that we had recently won our freedom from. He set a precedent which every following president held until FDR in 1940. The very reason the Amendment won the support of the majority in both congress and the states in the first place was due to the desire to return to the precedent set by Washington. Through the power of choice, the majority voted to return to that precedent. Even to this day the majority supports this precedent. In addition to this fact, we now even have a majority pushing for term limits on both Congress and Senate members [1]. It is for this reason that I believe Pro has no grounds to say that "we the people" are having our sovereignty or freedom of choice challenged. We can easily see that the majority not only stands by this precedent, but also seeks to expand it even further into the Houses of Congress and the Senate. We the people indeed have the power to govern ourselves, and we indeed have the power for our voices to be heard. Both of which are proven by our legislators response to FDR breaking the precedent when the majority passed and ratified the amendment. Lastly, we indeed have the ability to elect our own representatives. Not once since the Amendment first passed has that ability been impeded. Unless Pro can show that we have had a president since then that has A) sought a third term, B) had the majority support of the people for a third term, and C) had those efforts blocked by the Amendment thus impeding our ability... then there is no grounds for him to claim that "we the people" don't have the ability to elect our own representatives. The reality is that we've never had a president seek a third term since the amendment passed regardless of 2nd term popularity, nor have we (the people) ever suffered a net loss by such a president being unable to do so because of the 22nd Amendment. Our sovereignty was never challenged by this amendment, nor is it being challenged now - the truth is that the majority supported the decision/made the choice to set term limits, and still, as a majority, support such limits today. II. Sovereignty and the power of votingWhile Pro is correct that voting for a president who is able to garner support is a demonstration of the desires of the people, he overlooks the fact that the passing of the amendment was also a demonstration of the desires of the people. In fact, it's one of the most strict processes in which such a demonstration can take place. In a presidential election, the president merely needs to win 51% of the votes. In passing and ratifying an amendment, it requires 66% and then 75% support. Both the congress and the states in charge of voting for these amendments are doing so in the place of their constituents, the people. So, when we are discussing demonstrations of the desires of the people, which would hold more value - That which requires only 51% of support, or that which requires 75% support? I believe the amendment passing both the congress and the states is not only a clear demonstration of the desires of the people, but additionally one that required even more support by the people than that of our own president. It clearly reflects the will of the people, the will of the majority, and through our sovereignty we chose, and still choose, with the support of the majority, to keep that amendment within our Constitution. III. The function and impact of the XXII amendmentThis argument from Pro boils down to two parts: Experience & Mitigation In response to the experience point, I believe Pro is overlooking a key aspect of the Presidency: The Ability to perform the duties effectively. While an 80 year old mechanic might have the most experience, does he have the ability to perform the duties required? Can the most experienced pilot be of much use if he lacks the ability to fly the plane due to fatigue or any multitude of reasons? People don't retire because they lack experience, they retire because they lack the ability to perform as they once did. Our nation is constantly evolving. It requires leaders who can be flexible, think critically and strategically, stay abreast of domestic and foreign changes and trends. Thus, I believe that while the amendment *could potentially* restrict those with the most experience, it *certainly* allows for those with the ability to be considered.In regards to it mitigating the natural function of elections, I think that's a matter of interpretation. One of the functions of elections is to "produce a government that is in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate." [2] Considering that the majority of the electorate passed and ratified the amendment, I don't see how it mitigates the function of elections as it's in accordance with one of those functions itself. Also, voting is a legal right, not a natural right, thus no natural rights are "being abridged" by this amendment as Pro claims. In closing, The 22nd Amendment is not in conflict with our core principles nor does it harm our society. It was the desire of the people who passed it back in 47' and still has majority support nearly 70 years later. Only by repealing something that the majority desires would we truly be risking our sovereignty and freedom of choice. As of now, neither are threatened. Sources[1] http://www.gallup.com... [2] http://electionvotingnotes.blogspot.com...