Talk:Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

Contents 1 Number of multiple-term presidents 2 Reason for amendment 3 Comment 4 Some of you might be interested in 5 Passing 6 George W Bush current term 7 re theoretical presidential succession 8 People currently restricted by amendment

[edit] Number of multiple-term presidents

how many presidents served more than one term

To answer this question...

• George Washington
• Thomas Jefferson
• James Madison
• James Monroe
• Andrew Jackson
• Abraham Lincoln (he died during his second term)
• Ulysses Grant
• Grover Cleveland (not consecutive)
• William McKinley (he died during his second term)
• Woodrow Wilson
• Franklin Roosevelt (the only President to be elected 4 times; died early in his 4th term)
• Dwight Eisenhower
• Richard Nixon (he resigned during his second term)
• Ronald Reagan
• Bill Clinton
• George W Bush

66.32.76.46 01:30, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, and Lyndon Johnson as well. Granted, their first terms were begun by another person (and Johnson would have been eligible to run for a third term), they're still considered two-term presidents. They were just never reelected. RPH 16:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And Calvin Coolidge did as well, going under the same category as T. Roosevelt, Truman, and L. Johnson. --RandomOrca2 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for amendment

Why was this amendment considered necessary? Was Roosevelt really that bad?

I think the main beef was the potential for the presidency to become a de facto monarchy, with people choosing the "ruling" president as long as he wasn't doing things too badly, and/or the president making sure he would be continuously re-voted by doing everything to maintain the status quo (not necessarily good for the country). You can still say "so what?" to that, but US democratic principles are grounded in the rejection of monarchy, so even the hint of it is suspicious. I would like to see more-or-less expert explanations of it (taking contemporary considerations into account as well) of it on the page, though. --JRM 14:13, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to justify a law as though it were obviously the right thing to do. There must have been considerable debate on both sides of the 22nd amendment, and it would be valuable to see this discussed. — 24.223.147.139 00:22, 2005 July 5 (UTC)

From an Article in "Opposing Viewpoints" by Buckley, William F., Jr. I read that 1. "There was, to begin with, the sentiment to continue the tradition of a President's retiring after two terms. 2. Then there was the reaction that followed the news that gradually leaked out about the semi-invalid we had elected for a fourth term. 3. And the Anti-Rosevelt Amendment." The Amendment passed by a republican congress.

I still don't see a real explanation anywhere as to why this amendment was carried. There are arguments for and against it in principle, but this article contains no analysis of why congress and the states actually ratified it instead of rejecting it. There ought to be some explanation similar to the one behind the ratification of the Prohibition amendment which banned alcohol, as it's very interesting (whether you agree with an amendment or not) to see why a controversial amendment proves popular.

Incidentally, the British political system has no term limits on Prime Ministers at all, but no PM has ever managed to survive more than about 8 to 10 years in government. That, coupled with Roosevelt being the only US President to win more than two elections (and that was under very exceptional circumstances in WWII) makes it seem that there is already a natural two term limit in free and fair democracies, whether it is legislated or not.

[edit] Comment

Personally, I have always felt that the 22nd Amendment should be itself re-amended to cover all three branches of government. Limiting the President as written, limiting Congress to 12 years maximum, and limiting the Supreme Court to 15 years. Fair is fair, right? I always found it queer that the president was limited but nobody else. — 206.156.242.39 13:06, 2005 June 13

The problem with doing that to Congress is you lose a heck of a lot of experienced politicians. Congress would be completely full of fresh faces with relatively little track record in legislation. Many of the greatest politicians today have honed their skills after decades of experience in politics. Foreign Policy, for example, is an area that requires lots of experience in order to understand it properly.

• I've read somewhere that former Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush and Clinton believed a President should serve just one 6 year term. Mightberight/wrong 16:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC).

Carter said in a TV interview that he preferred the idea of one 6 year term to two 4 year terms, so that a President would be free to make policy instead of worrying about re-election.

• Was Truman exempted from the 22nd Amendment, which was passed during his presidency? If so, then Truman would have technically been eligible to serve more than 8 years.
  • Yes he was. Dbinder 04:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

He was, and as the article says he did indeed try to win a third term but failed to do well enough in the primaries.

[edit] Some of you might be interested in

repeal being sat on in Committee since feb 17 2005: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

[edit] Passing

Is it possible to add some information on the numbers that this amendment had when it passed? All the article currently says is "requisite number of states". It need only be 2 sentences, like "30 of 50 states, 67% of the population" should do it; only I don't know the real statistic. A J Hay 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, I'd love to know more about this. The whole process of this amendment's passing has been glossed over in this article.

[edit] George W Bush current term

I removed the last edit by Folksong which added these words: "or if he decides not to carry out the rest of his term or is unable to do so." Seemed clumsy to me, so I merely changed the statement about when Bush's term ends to when his term is due to end. Concise and correct. Darcyj 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re theoretical presidential succession

I just have a question about a lame duck president who is appointed a cabinet member. If everyone before him (or her) is incapable of performing the duties of the President and he's in line for the presidency, doesn't he still have to qualify for the Presidency with the term limits? Like what if Bill Clinton was appointed Secretary of Defense and everyone before him died in some accident.

• Assuming Bill Clinton is ineligible for the presidency, the line of succession would skip over him and go on to the Attorney General. Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, and she is not a natural born US citizen. Had there been some accident which rendered the President, VP, House Speaker, and Pres Pro Tem incapable, the line of succession would have skipped over her in the same fasion 68.110.114.40 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Alex

• I'm not sure that's correct - reading the text of the 22nd, it states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President ..." It does not state that a previous President who could ascend through some other means would be ineligible - Article Two would seem to be the sole restraint here. Bill Clinton could, if he chose, run for Congress, be elected, and ascend to Speaker of the House, putting him second in line. President & VP die or are removed or incapacitated, and boom - Clinton's next in line, and he's not ineligible. The 22nd would only bar him from being reelected after finishing that term. At least, that's how I read it - it's a long-shot scenario anyway, so the discussion is largely academic. --142.167.141.183 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The last poster is correct. See the discussion on this at Talk:United States presidential line of succession. JCO312 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People currently restricted by amendment

I removed presidents Carter and H.W. Bush from the list of those currently restricted by this amendment, but it was reverted. Rather then simply let it get reverted again (I know people here don't trust IPs....), I figured I'd explain the reasoning.

• A) Technically any person in the US is restricted by the law to two terms, but only presidents Clinton and W. Bush are specifically unable to run for president because of this amendment.
• B) Realistically, there's no point to having that particular list unless you are being specific. At present, all it does is state the living former presidents. It does not actually state what the preceding sentence refers to.

I think it should be changed to contain only those who are unable to run for the position of president in a future election (IE: Clinton and W. Bush), but I'll leave it to someone else to change to avoid a big stink. - 71.7.168.237 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)