[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000183","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/amendments\/22\/essays\/184\/presidential-term-limit\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EPresidential Term Limit\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Amendment XXII\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESection 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ESection 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Twenty-second Amendment, proposed\u0026nbsp;by Congress in 1947 when President Harry S.\u0026nbsp;Truman was completing Franklin Delano Roosevelt\u2019s\u0026nbsp;fourth term, was a reaction to FDR\u2019s\u0026nbsp;unprecedented four consecutive elections to the\u0026nbsp;presidency. But support for (and opposition to)\u0026nbsp;presidential term limits had a lengthy and complex\u0026nbsp;history prior to the amendment\u2019s becoming law.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EParticipants in the Constitutional Convention\u0026nbsp;of 1787 extensively debated the idea of\u0026nbsp;restricting the amount of time a person could\u0026nbsp;serve as president, but ultimately included no\u0026nbsp;such limits in the Constitution proposed to the\u0026nbsp;states. \u003Cem\u003EThe Federalist Papers\u003C\/em\u003E explicitly defended\u0026nbsp;this decision to leave presidents with unlimited\u0026nbsp;The Heritage Guide to the Constitution\u0026nbsp;eligibility, contending that the alternative would\u0026nbsp;be \u201cpernicious,\u201d depriving the nation of its best\u0026nbsp;leaders and undermining \u201cstability in the administration\u201d\u0026nbsp;of government. Other thinkers in the\u0026nbsp;Founding era came to different conclusions,\u0026nbsp;with Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, for\u0026nbsp;example, arguing that limits on the number of\u0026nbsp;times a person could serve as president would\u0026nbsp;help sustain the republic.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EGeorge Washington, who famously declined\u0026nbsp;to be considered for a third presidential term in\u0026nbsp;1796, is cited as the father of a two-term tradition\u0026nbsp;that culminated in the Twenty-second Amendment.\u0026nbsp;But Washington did not favor limits on\u0026nbsp;eligibility, and he wrote that the decision to\u0026nbsp;exclude such restrictions was \u201cfairly discussed in\u0026nbsp;the Convention.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ENevertheless, following Washington\u2019s retirement\u0026nbsp;after his second elected term, numerous\u0026nbsp;public figures subsequently argued that the nation\u0026nbsp;should follow his example of limited service to create\u0026nbsp;a check against any one person, or the presidency\u0026nbsp;as a whole, accumulating too much power.\u0026nbsp;While a number of presidents considered attempting\u0026nbsp;a third term, no one successfully did so until\u0026nbsp;Franklin Roosevelt\u2019s 1940 electoral victory.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ECongress expressed its interest in presidential\u0026nbsp;term limits by introducing 270 measures restricting\u0026nbsp;the terms of office of the president prior to proposing\u0026nbsp;the Twenty-second Amendment. Nonetheless,\u0026nbsp;sustained attention to turning this legislative sentiment\u0026nbsp;into law developed only with the Roosevelt\u0026nbsp;presidency. The Republican Party\u2019s platforms of\u0026nbsp;1940 and 1944 called for a constitutional amendment\u0026nbsp;that would limit a person from being president\u0026nbsp;\u201cfor more than two terms\u201d and campaign\u0026nbsp;literature from this era warned of the dangers of\u0026nbsp;entrenching executive power through years of successive\u0026nbsp;service.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn 1946, congressional lawmakers made the\u0026nbsp;president\u2019s four terms an issue in their election\u0026nbsp;campaigns, pledging to support a constitutional\u0026nbsp;amendment that would bar such lengthy presidencies\u0026nbsp;in the future. In January 1947, prominent\u0026nbsp;House leaders acted on these pledges, introducing\u0026nbsp;an initiative that ultimately became the Twenty-second\u0026nbsp;Amendment. Despite the arguments of\u0026nbsp;some that the amendment was a posthumous\u0026nbsp;rebuke of Roosevelt, it is notable that both houses\u0026nbsp;that proposed the amendment were controlled by\u0026nbsp;the Democratic Party.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe turning point in the debates on the measure\u0026nbsp;occurred when Democratic Senator Warren\u0026nbsp;Magnuson argued for an amendment that would\u0026nbsp;simply bar someone from being \u201celected to the\u0026nbsp;office of President more than twice.\u201d Magnuson\u0026nbsp;claimed that other proposals being considered were\u0026nbsp;too \u201ccomplicated\u201d and might unfairly restrict a person\u0026nbsp;who assumed the office of president \u201cthrough\u0026nbsp;circumstances beyond his control, and with no\u0026nbsp;deliberation on his part . . . but because of an emergency,\u201d\u0026nbsp;such as the death of an elected president.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EWhen some legislators countered that Magnuson\u2019s\u0026nbsp;proposal provided insufficient controls on\u0026nbsp;those who assumed the presidency through these\u0026nbsp;\u201cunfortunate circumstance[s],\u201d a compromise\u0026nbsp;was struck. The final proposal provided a general\u0026nbsp;prohibition against a person\u2019s being elected to the\u0026nbsp;office of president more than twice while imposing\u0026nbsp;additional restrictions on those who attained the\u0026nbsp;office of president through nonelectoral means,\u0026nbsp;such as succession. The resulting language is what\u0026nbsp;is now the Twenty-second Amendment.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIt can safely be concluded that those who\u0026nbsp;drafted the amendment sought to prevent the\u0026nbsp;emergence of a president who would serve for as\u0026nbsp;many years as FDR. Some proponents of the measure\u0026nbsp;further argued that they were seeking to codify\u0026nbsp;the \u201ctwo-term tradition\u201d associated with Washington.\u0026nbsp;But while these observations point to the\u0026nbsp;general aspirations of the amendment\u2019s authors,\u0026nbsp;they do not establish a specific picture of how they\u0026nbsp;intended their proposal to apply.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ECongressional deliberations about the amendment\u0026nbsp;were curtailed, with the House restricting\u0026nbsp;debate to two hours. Furthermore, the discussions\u0026nbsp;leading up to the congressional vote did not obviously\u0026nbsp;articulate a consistent, clear legislative purpose.\u0026nbsp;Lawmakers expressed, at various times, their\u0026nbsp;interest in limiting a president\u2019s \u201cservice,\u201d \u201cterms,\u201d\u0026nbsp;\u201ctenure,\u201d and \u201c[eligibility for] reelection,\u201d without\u0026nbsp;elaborating exactly how these different terms\u0026nbsp;should be understood. Moreover, when Congress\u0026nbsp;discarded initial proposals foreclosing a person\u2019s\u0026nbsp;eligibility for office if he or she had served in two\u0026nbsp;prior terms, and instead adopted the current text\u0026nbsp;that focuses on limiting elections to the presidency,\u0026nbsp;it provided little explanation for this important\u0026nbsp;shift beyond needing \u201ccompromise\u201d as part of the\u0026nbsp;lawmaking process.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EOne should also note that the immediate\u0026nbsp;framers of the amendment did not obviously\u0026nbsp;intend to create a two-term tradition in any narrow\u0026nbsp;sense. They specifically discussed how the\u0026nbsp;amendment would allow someone who became\u0026nbsp;president through an \u201cemergency\u201d within the first\u0026nbsp;two years of a presidential term to pursue the White\u0026nbsp;House through election for two additional terms.\u0026nbsp;Thus, despite the assumption of many that the\u0026nbsp;Twenty-second Amendment codified Washington\u2019s\u0026nbsp;two-term example, we are left with some genuine\u0026nbsp;uncertainty about its creators\u2019 precise goals.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe ratification debates over the amendment\u0026nbsp;do not provide much additional insight into the\u0026nbsp;wishes of those who supported the proposal in the\u0026nbsp;states. The amendment does not appear to have\u0026nbsp;prompted a great deal of public or legislative discussion\u0026nbsp;once approved by Congress.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAlthough numerous court opinions make\u0026nbsp;passing reference to the Twenty-second Amendment,\u0026nbsp;its implications have not been systematically\u0026nbsp;examined by the judiciary. No doubt the low\u0026nbsp;profile of the amendment in the courts reflects\u0026nbsp;limited interest in and opportunity for testing the\u0026nbsp;provision. Since the amendment was ratified, only\u0026nbsp;six presidents have been technically limited by it\u0026nbsp;(Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald\u0026nbsp;Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton, George W.\u0026nbsp;Bush, and Barack Obama were all twice elected),\u0026nbsp;and none of them seriously considered challenging\u0026nbsp;the amendment\u2019s legal restrictions or meaning.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThese facts should not lead one to conclude\u0026nbsp;that the Twenty-second Amendment is so straightforward\u0026nbsp;that it requires no further interpretation.\u0026nbsp;Among other unresolved questions, the amendment\u0026nbsp;seems to leave open the possibility that a\u0026nbsp;twice-elected president could still become president\u0026nbsp;through nonelectoral means. For example, such a\u0026nbsp;person might still be elevated to the presidency after\u0026nbsp;serving as vice president, or, if authorized, to act as\u0026nbsp;president through a presidential-succession statute.\u0026nbsp;Indeed, many of today\u2019s scholarly and policy\u0026nbsp;debates about the amendment speculate on how\u0026nbsp;it could be interpreted or altered to give the nation\u0026nbsp;greater options in dealing with problems related to\u0026nbsp;terrorism, emergency rule, and presidential succession.\u0026nbsp;Critics have urged repeal of the amendment\u0026nbsp;on the grounds that it makes executive leadership\u0026nbsp;more difficult and limits popular choice.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/view.fdu.edu\/default.aspx?id=6307\u0022\u003EBruce Peabody\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Professor of Political Science, Fairleigh Dickinson University\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000183-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000183-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000183-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000183-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EDavid A. Crockett, \u003Cem\u003E\u0022An Excess of Refinement\u0022: Lame Duck Presidents in Constitutional and Historical Context,\u003C\/em\u003E\u0026nbsp;38 Presidential Stud. Q. 707 (2008)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBruce G. Peabody \u0026amp; Scott E. Gant, \u003Ci\u003EThe Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-second Amendment\u003C\/i\u003E, 83 Minn. L. Rev. 565 (1999)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EStephen W. Stathis, \u003Ci\u003EThe Twenty-second Amendment: A Practical Remedy or Partisan Maneuver?,\u003C\/i\u003E 7 Const. Comm. 61 (1990)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnintended Consequences of Constitutional Amendment (David E. Kevin ed., 2000)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000183-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000183-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000081\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPresidential Eligibility\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000082\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPresidential Succession\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000079\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EElectoral College\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000181\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPresidential Terms\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000186\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPresidential Succession\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]