US Presidency, Two-Term Limits on

The two-term limit is undemocratic. If Americans want to vote for a President again after two terms, and that President is willing to serve, why should their wishes automatically be denied? The two-term convention was seized upon by a coalition of senators who wanted more power for themselves (by undermining the Presidency), FDR haters and presidential aspirants who wanted to ensure regular turnover at the top. There is no logical basis for this limitation beyond that. The effect of this scheming is damaging: it denies Americans the chance to vote for a candidate they might want to support. This amendment limits voter choice.

A strong executive is important for both philosophical and practical reasons. Philosophically, a strong executive is desirable as a motor for change and an efficient response to changing times The 22nd Amendment imbalances government in the legislature’s favour. In practical terms, term limits weren’t accidentally omitted from the constitution – the Founding Fathers considered, debated and rejected them. This is because the prospect of future tenure gives the Presidency leverage to get things done. Without that, Presidential terms suffer the lame duck effect, in which a President is less and less able to force his legislative agenda: for example, after Eisenhower’s overwhelming win in 1956, Congressional Republicans increasingly ignored his leadership despite his fresh and powerful mandate. The limit effectively denies the choice voters have made of coming to practical fruition: the status quo undermines second term presidents.

In times of national or international crisis, continuity and experience can be vital. Electorates can recognise this – hence FDR’s third and fourth term wins during the Second World War. The 22nd Amendment automatically denies the possibility of democratically approved continuity. This is particularly worrying given that thousands of jobs in the executive branch of government change hands every time a new President is elected, something which is not so common in the civil service of other countries. The opposition must show why the idea of continuity in a crisis is less important than the principle of a two-term limit.

Some policies require long term leadership to ensure their success, over a long period of time: for example, FDR’s post-depression social reforms, ‘The New Deal.’ If those policies are ones voters support, why deny them the chance of continuous development?

If the two term rule is aimed at preventing an entrenched set or clique, then why permit Vice Presidents and other close associates of a President run, as with the Reagan-Bush presidencies, where the new administration retained the majority of key personnel (including cabinet members)? In truth, all the problems the 22nd Amendment supposedly combats – a clique or group dominating politics – happen anyway. But these are people that have been voted for – as a successful third term president would be. It’s not as if suddenly the rules of government change in a third term: all the checks and balances in place for the first two remain. A third term president is no more innately powerful than a second.