Why should we repeal the 22nd Amendment?

When the Founding Fathers of America were framing the Constitution, they decided that each president will serve four years in office with the opportunity to be reelected without limitation. However, in 1951 the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution effectively limited presidential terms to two four year terms. When looking back at this new Amendment, in my opinion, it should be repealed.

When looking  at the Federalist Papers, specifically Alexander Hamilton's No. 72, the Founding Fathers already debated presidential term limits in detail. They came up with some good reasoning for allowing the president to serve as many terms as they are elected for. First off, a president who serves in office gains experience. Just like other jobs, the president will gain experience in many different situations unique to his job and duties that will hopefully let him make more educated and well thought out decisions. On top of that, think about the inexperience a new president will have. President of the US is far from an ubiquitous job and the only way to learn the job effectively is to actually be in office. So, when you have a president that was popular enough to be elected to two terms, making him ineligible for a third term, electing a new candidate poses new problems. The new candidate will have to adjust and learn quickly to continue the success of his predecessor.

Furthermore, what if there must be a new president elected right in the middle of a war? First off, you run the risk of electing presidents with opposing views of the war. The successor may start to pull out of the war, if they are opposed, therefore ruining the reputation and stability of the US and our troops in an international viewpoint. On top of that, the successor would be entering a brand new job in the middle of a very critical time for the entire country. The country is running too big of a risk if they are going to force the American people to change presidents during a critical war because of term limitations. So, one might be wondering what are the consequences of letting a president serve more than two terms. Will the president become too powerful? Will he continue to serve beyond a reasonable age? The answer is no. In my opinion after the initial shock of repealing the Amendment, there wont be further repercussions . Prior to 1951, the country didn't have a limit on the amount of terms a president can serve but yet only one president (FDR) served more than 2 terms. The American people will elect the best president for the job, so why limit them to who they can vote. If a president is up for a third term, then it should be up to the American people (and they will make the right decision) to pick the best candidate.

If your looking for an example of term limits look at the mayoral position of NYC. The mayor of NYC used to be limited to serving only two terms ( just like the president now) but in 2008 Mayor Mike Bloomberg wanted to change this. It was his second and according to the law last term in office. However, in 2008 a financial crisis unexpectedly hit not only NYC but also the rest of the US suddenly and quickly. Mayor Mike had experience not only in the mayors office but with the but also with business and finance. So, the people of NY knew that whoever would succeed him wouldn't be as qualified as a Mayor and in the field of business. So, Mayor Mike and the rest of NYC worked to promote an extension of the term limits, to allow Mayor Mike to serve his third term. He did indeed win the election and went on to serve his third term. So what does this have to do with presidential term limits? The same principle is going to be true. Nobody forced New Yorkers to vote for Mayor Mike when he ran for his third term. Nobody forced them. It just gave them the opportunity to choose who they really wanted to serve as their Mayor. The New Yorkers' voices were heard, because if they didn't think Mayor Mike was the best candidate or they didn't agree with the extension of mayoral terms they still had the freedom to vote for who they thought was the best candidate. And when they voted, they showed that the best candidate was Mayor Mike.  He was the most qualified in that situation and if NYers weren't even allowed to vote for him there would have been a completely different outcome. Somebody less experienced and qualified would have been elected to office, and who knows what would have happened and how severe the recession in NYC would have ended up being.

So, repealing the 22nd Amendment will give the American people the opportunity and freedom to vote for the most qualified candidate.  The 22nd Amendment is ultimately limiting the American people more than it is limiting the president. It prevents the public from putting the best candidate in office and, at times, makes us settle for the second best. Leave it up to the American people whether they want a president to serve for a 3rd, 4th or 5th term because we should have enough confidence within each other that we will choose the right candidate for the job.