Talk:Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

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)

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.

Sign your comments, please.

There are plenty of examples e.g. in the Nordic countries of PMs "reigning" for a long time - and, more importantly, winning more elections! In many countries the maximum term is four years, but elections can be held before that, so a government may have to survive more than two elections in eight years.

I don't think there is a "natural" democratic limit to how long an administration can stay popular with the voters. If they are doing a good job, they will be allowed to stay in office. Unfortunately, the opposite doesn't always apply, as recent history shows.

Of course it is remarkable that the American voters almost always switch between parties from one president to the next. Maybe if they had more choices than two - and if people actually voted for the president and not for an elector - we would see a more democratic system in America...--dllu 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I had always assumed one reason for the amendment was Roosevelt's growing illness - it must have seemed at the time that the job was literally killing Roosevelt, and that it was unwise in a time of crisis to have a sick President. I assume Buckley's point is that a President who overestimates his own well-being might not know when to throw in the towel. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever considered changing the term limit to two consecutive terms? This would allow someone to serve two terms, take one or two off and then run again.

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.

But notice that none of them (excepting Clinton) were re-elected.  ;) 192.35.35.34 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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.

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:

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.

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)

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)

Ok, a less long-shot scenario then: when Hillary becomes president, she can't have Bill as her running mate, but if her first choice VP pulls an "Agnew" and has to resign halfway through the term, she can appoint Bill as her new VP? --dllu 20:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See below. Bill Clinton is not ineligible to be elected Vice President, nor to succeed to the Presidency from VP. He just can't be elected to another term as President. Hillary would be perfectly free to choose him as her running mate. Whether she'd want to is up to her. Whether the American people would vote for that ticket is up to them. (And, to be bipartisan, the same would be true of G.W. Bush - he could be John McCain's running mate.) JTRH (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

"Theodore Roosevelt unsuccessfully sought a second term four years after serving a full term after succeeding William McKinley."

I'm pretty sure that Teddy wasn't restricted by the amendment, as he died in 1919... 71.178.240.152 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between the 22nd and 12th amendments

There are no citiations for the opinions presented here. Does any substantial debate actually exist? It seems quite clear that the words of the 12th are on their face perfectly declaratory, and that any rational construction of the text of the 22nd would result in any person not meeting the requirements for Presidential election under same be not eligible for service. Of course, I imagine that the real reason that any such debate might exist is the notion that Hillary Clinton might win the next election, and that there would be popular support for Bill Clinton as VP. Again, it seems perfectly clear that this would be unconstitutional, as it seems also clear that the whole point of the 12th is to ensure that there is no confusion in the succession shoud the President be disabled. 76.116.13.114 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're incorrect. The Constitution only restricts election as President. No one may be elected President more than twice. No one who has served or acted as President for more than two years of someone else's term may be elected President more than once. The Constitution does not restrict such a person from subsequently serving as Vice President, or from succeeding (returning) to the Presidency after the incumbent's death, resignation or removal by impeachment. He just couldn't run for another term as President on his own. You don't have to be eligible to be elected President to be eligible to serve as President or Vice President - you just have to meet the Constitutional requirements: be a natural-born citizen, a U.S. resident for 14 years, and at least 35 years of age. JTRH (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about the interaction between the 12th and 22nd was deleted without explanation, and has just been restored. I agree that the statements were factually inaccurate (see my comments immediately above), but there should be an explanation or discussion before a fairly substantial part of the article just gets cut out. JTRH (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. The paragraph in question still needs to be reliably sourced, and it's unlikely that it will be since there's no actual debate among Constitutional scholars about the provisions of the 22nd. JTRH (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?

Necessary or not? It seems like it just has a few examples and nothing worthwhile. NuclearWarfare (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Heredity, Monarchs, and Rights of Succession

If the idea behind term limits seeks to avoid the appearance of a "president for life", the 22nd Amendment does not address the creation of dynastic attempts to create a house to rival Windsor, the Kennedys, say. Or a sitting president positioning blood relatives such as a son from taking over, whilst continuing to influence the making of policy. The Bushes come to mind. The Clintons, though, are really pushing it with a husband/wife relationship, conflated into one entity in "Holy Matrimony" (and if you disagree, see what the IRS, or Court rules have to say about what does not make for arms-length.) Of course, one can argue the case as a virtue, depending upon one's politics. 76.173.2.87 (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland

The main article should have some mention of Grover Cleveland and his non-consecutive two terms. It's relevant in the discussion. 69.238.185.113 (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it relevant?., he was president before the admendment was pased Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

22nd vs. 14th

Is there a tension between the 22nd Amendment term limiting the Presidency, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? The 14th ensures the application of law to all citizens equally, but as of this writing, the 22nd only applies to only four citizens, five after the next election. 65.6.56.54 (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment reads that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The 22nd Amendment applies equally to living and future presidents from all states, and its term limitation affects (and protects?) citizens from all states. —ADavidB 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

History comment

Alexander Hamilton argues against presidential term limits specifically in [federalist paper #72].

TyrellCorp (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, Hamilton initially argued for the President being appointed for life on condition of good behavior. His theory, that the term-limited president would seek to usurp the Constitution to maintain office, has not been borne out by history. bd2412 T 08:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)