Talk:Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The reason for the limitation

can anyone help, I know the constitution says so, but what is the reason behind the limitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.212.212 (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's mostly just tradition. Intentionally or not, George Washington effectively set a precedent that a President only serve two terms. FDR broke that tradition, so the tradition was codified into law. —Spencersoft (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly the reasoning was, "Roosevelt invited the war in order to get reelected." It may happen with two-term US presidents, but they have only one chance. 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense! The reasoning is expressed by Thomas Jefferson, who feared that the possibility of unlimited re-election could result in life-long presidencies and thus monarchical governments. Washington's precedent was used in this way, though not all Presidents (including Washington himself) shared such qualms and tried to win a third term (Grant, Cleveland, T. Roosevelt). Since no president ever had a third term nobody, nobody bothered to actual make this tradition into law. Roosevelt winning a third and fourth term changed that. Roosevelt actually did very little to be nominated for a third term. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

My understanding, acquired in history classes, was that this amendment was largely driven by Republican rage over Democratic FDR's four-time success and that even though he was dead they imagined they were somehow taking a stand against him with it. Yes, they were that petty. Both houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP after the 1946 election so that made it easier for them to make this statement. Of course the irony is that the first President to be limited by the 22nd was GOP Eisenhower and not a Democrat.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

According to Thomas Jefferson George Washington's self declared two term limit would only be effective if someone else decides follow the example. And so did many Two Term Presidents of the 19th and 20th century (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Cleveland, Wilson and Coolidge). A need to actually codify the two term limit seemed not to exist, since voters rejected any attempts of two term presidents to get elected for a third term (Grant in 1876, T.Roosevelt in 1912, Truman in 1952, Johnson in 1968), all, but Franklin D. Roosevelt's in 1940 and 1944. But here is why I do not assume that this was a partisan thing: if a person holds the office of president for a too long period, possible successors are prevented from trying to get the position on their own. A term limit secures change and political refreshment without having to make a decision whether or not to sack the leader of the party and to face all the consequences that come with it. Christof Fellner, B.A. of Political Science, Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.81.97.190 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323115737/http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/20/lafantasie_civil_war_consensus/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/20/lafantasie_civil_war_consensus/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Scenario

If Biden were to select Obama as his running mate, then Biden were to die, would Obama be allowed to be president?  Nixinova  T  C  19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course, I am not an expert. But this refers to the question how the 12th and 22nd Amendment interfere with each other. That is, if a former Two Term President would wish to run for Vice President, it would have to be clarified by the Supreme Court. I would assume, that there are several options.

1. it is unconstitutional: Someone ineligible to the presidency is bared from a ticket, or to be elected into it on a later occasion under all circumstances. This applies to a position on the presidential line of succession too, either in its entirety, or, only for as long as there is no Vice President.
2. it is partly possibly: Someone who has served as a Two Term President is eligible to serve as Vice President only in the second half of a term, because if the person has to take over the renewed presidency would be shorter than half a presidency. The person would have to be elected according to the 27th Amendment. There is no reason to ban the Person from any other Place on the Presidential line of Succession in its first half for as long as there is a Vice President.
3. it is possible: A Two Term President can be elected as Vice President, because if the Person would have to take over again, that renewed Presidency would end automatically on the day it would last longer than half a term. Afterwards Option 1 would apply, since no constitutional time to be spent in the Presidency is left over.

I assume Option 1 is the most likely one, although Option 2 and 3 would not be unconstitutional either. CF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.81.97.190 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The Twenty-Second Amendment prohibits anyone from being elected President more than twice. It does not address becoming President by other means, such as election as Vice President and then succession to the Presidency. The "more than two years" in the 22nd refers to previous service, such as the distinction between Lyndon Johnson (who served less than two years of Kennedy's term) being eligible to then run for two full terms, vs. Gerald Ford (who served more than two years of Nixon's) only being eligible to run for one full term. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a President leave office before the time when the original four-year term expires. JTRH (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of the 22nd Amendment makes a distinction between being elected more than twice and serving more than twice, that is, gaining the office in a way other than being elected President. I would simply ask if this distinction makes any sense. What possible reason could the framers of this amendment, and those who ratified it, have for prohibiting more than 2 elections, but not more than 2 terms? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the distinction "makes any sense." What matters is the words that are used. If the amendment read, "No person shall be eligible to serve as President of the United States for more than two full terms" or "more than ten years," that would clearly prohibit a former two-term President from serving as VP, since he would then be ineligible to succeed to the Presidency. But that's not how it's phrased. JTRH (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

So, anyone have ideas for improving the Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment section? Drdpw (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The statement "it is unclear" is unsourced. The "some" in "Some argue"... is one opinion piece in a conservative publication specifically arguing against Bill Clinton becoming Vice President. Hillary Clinton never stated the source of the "advice" that Bill Clinton would be ineligible to be her running mate. I have heard of the existence of a law review article arguing that position, but I've never seen it, and I don't know whether that was where she got it from. In the absence of better sourcing, I'm not convinced that this "controversy" actually exists. The language of the Constitution is not, in fact, ambiguous. JTRH (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm 100% in agreement with JTRH. The constitutional language isn't ambiguous, and in fact seems expertly drafted to avoid this concern. The sole citation listed here from any legal source is a blog post by one attorney in Blandon, Pennsylvania. I hope that's not sufficient for wikipedia to endorse this as a bone fide "controversy." Peezy1001 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Not understanding why I am being corrected.

In the article, there is a discussion about Ulysses Grant and the 22nd amendment. There is a sentence I don’t agree is structured correctly. I am not a English major so I will take criticism if I am wrong. Instead of correcting over and over and risk being banned for something I disagree with, I want to bring it here for discussion to help me understand why I am wrong or correct the mistake once and for all.

The sentence is this:

“Following Ulysses S. Grant's reelection victory in 1872, there were serious discussions within Republican political circles about the possibility of his running again in 1876.”

I believe it should read like this:

“Following Ulysses S. Grant's reelection victory in 1872, there were serious discussions within Republican political circles about the possibility of him running again in 1876.”

Basically I believe that “him” should replace “his.”

Thank you. Ghost17570 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The grammar rule in question involves pronouns in front of gerunds, wherein a possessive pronoun is to be used. This external source seems to cover the subject well. —ADavidB 00:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It is sadly an English rule that is broken too often. I am afraid I may not be the first or last to believe that the sentence in question is wrong. Ghost17570 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What remedy is there if the people defy the 22nd Amendment?

This amendment doesn't prevent someone actually being chosen by the people (write-in, for example) for an excessive term as POTUS. Is this amendment actually more authoritative than the will of the majority's election decisions? I believe a case could be made successfully that it is not, but I am no legal scholar. -Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.78.176 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You’re presenting your layperson’s opinion as fact and inviting discussion on that opinion; this page is not a forum for general discussion. If you have changes to propose, please present them in “change X to Y” format. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It prevents the electors from voting for that person, Congress from certifying the electoral vote, and the person being administered the oath for a third term. JTRH (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You could also ignore all the laws of the land & see how far that gets you. Like Drdpw said, best to have that conversation elsewhere. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)