Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed? Added to the Constitution in the aftermath of F.D.R.'s election to a fourth term, the 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms.

• Author: Crockett, David A.
• Position: DEBATE

YES

The 22nd Amendment is antidemocratic. Term limits deny the nation the opportunity to re-elect successful presidents. If Americans are pleased with the performance of their chief executive, why force him out because of a fear of power? Our checks and balances system is strong enough to resist over-weening ambition.

The 22nd Amendment robs us of the most experienced people for the office. Why not let the American people decide if they want to take advantage of that service instead of risking the job on an untried leader?

The Amendment also reduces the political power of the president to unacceptable levels. The day after a president wins a second term, everyone knows he is an instant lame duck. At the moment of his highest experience and level of authority, the president's ability to shape the policy agenda is diminished because everyone knows when he is leaving office. Attention quickly shifts to speculation about a successor, and soon he can do little more than focus on foreign policy. Pressing domestic tasks end up waiting until after the next election.

One purpose of elections is to reward or punish leaders for their performance. Since second-term presidents will not face the electorate again, they have an incentive to use their discretionary authority without fear of retribution. In other words, they are less accountable to the public.

Term limits target a phantom problem, and the costs outweigh the benefits. The Framers were right to reject them, and so should we.

--David A. Crockett

Associate Professor of Political Science

Trinity University

NO

Repealing the 22nd Amendment would allow presidents to use their significant power to ward off all challengers well beyond the present two-term limit.

As the nation's supreme elected official, the president has command of the media...