22nd Amendment Research Paper
The 22nd Amendment: Unchallenged Following the death Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which occurred during his fourth elected term as president, the United States Congress passed the twenty-second amendment, which put into writing a previously unwritten tradition of the presidency. This tradition, set in place by George Washington in 1797 and further cemented by Thomas Jefferson, had remained in place for 144 years before it was finally broken. While a few previous presidents had tried to run for a third term, it was only FDR who succeeded. Grant tried to run but lost his party’s nomination to Garfield, Grover Cleveland attempted a third term but could not garner enough support, Theodore Roosevelt lost to Woodrow Wilson when Theodore attempted
…show more content…
a third term, and Wilson lacked the support of his party when he tried to run for a third term. This topic, out of all the topics I might have chosen, was of particular interest to me because it is something that is often glossed over in history classes, with only a brief mention. I thus decided to research it further, wondering if there was any sort of opposition to it, or controversy surrounding it. However, after conducting research it seems that the reason that it is glossed over is because there was not much of a debate over it. Although there have been a few people to speak out against the amendment since its passing, the public, as far as my research could tell me, is in support of it, and there was really only one group that was vocally opposed to it at the time of its proposal. This group, called the National Committee against Limiting the Presidency, was made up of seven men: Daniel Francis Clancy, a journalist and the founder of the committee, Harold Ickes, the internal secretary of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Michael Francis Doyle, the President of the Electoral College, Maury Maverick, a member of the 74th and 75th Congresses, Joseph F.
Guffey, a former Pennsylvanian senator, C.F. Richards, a lawyer from Texas, and Edmond C. Gorrell, an editor of a newspaper in Indiana. Formed towards the beginning of 1949, The National Committee against Limiting the Presidency, despite its ambitions of stopping the twenty-second amendment from being passed, was quite small and inactive. The group was practically doomed from the start, as they suffered from two major encumbrances to their ability to achieve their goal. The first was an inability to gather more members, as well as a lack of action on the part of most of the members of the group. Daniel Francis Clancy and Harold Ickes reportedly contributed the majority of the efforts to present opposition to the amendment. The second reason for the group’s failure was their limited budget, which was brought on by its very limited membership. This lack in money meant that nearly all of their action against the amendment consisted of writing letters to senators asking them to try to block the amendment. (Lemelin, 1999) This group, however, was not the first to speak in support of presidents holding more than two, four-year terms in office. One of the earliest such people was Alexander Hamilton with his plan for how the president should be elected, which was discussed in class. The Hamilton plan of a “life monarch”, who was free from public control, was not exactly what those against the twenty-second amendment had in mind, but it is probably similar to what the supporters of the amendment most likely
feared.
Even after the amendment had been passed there were a few people that argued against the need for the amendment. The most common argument was that voters should be able to decide whether or not a president is worth keeping, and a poor president would not be elected again by the public. One notable person was Ronald Reagan, who had made known his feelings that the number of terms a president serves should be up to the voters, although he stated that he himself would not run for a third term even if the amendment was repealed (“Repeal the twenty-second?”). Another notable person against presidential term limits was Harry S. Truman, after his tenure as president. In fact, Truman called the twenty-second amendment one of the worst amendments in the constitution, second only to prohibition (Truman, 1960). However, there were almost no public, vocal detractors of the amendment while the amendment was in the process of being passed and ratified. This could be attributed to the general consensus that there was a very good chance that it would pass, and thus any effort to rally against it, would be a waste of time and money (Zucker, 1958). The utter lack of controversy surrounding this subject may also be attributed to the general American fear of dictatorships that was intensified by the break down in relations with the Soviet Union. The amendment was also viewed as a way to prevent the Executive branch from becoming unrestrained in power, and bring it back into balance with the judicial branch (Haynes 1989). All of these public concerns are what most likely led to the utter lack of public discussion on the topic. This is best illustrated by two Times magazine articles, which simply state that the amendment was put forth (Times, 1947), and later that it was approved (Times, 1951) with next to no commentary on the subject. One common view that I found in my research was that a big reason for the twenty-second amendment was as backlash for FDR’s four terms in office, especially given his state of health when running for his later terms. This posthumous condemnation of sorts of FDR’s actions may have been a part of the reason behind the majority of Democrats who opposed the amendment (Willis and Willis, 1952), as well as some of the supporters of the amendment. Of course, regardless of the personal motivations of any of the senators, the bill was approved by the required number of Congress members as well as the requisite number of states in order to get it successfully signed into law. Regardless of the reason behind its passing, the twenty-second amendment continues to stand today virtually unopposed. There is no one rallying for its repeal, while shouting that the citizens can be trusted to vote out bad presidents. It may be due to other, more pressing matters on our minds, but when I listen to the news or hear people talking about the government, I wonder why no one brings it up anymore. It has, essentially become a part of our cultural furniture, which everyone simply accepts, and the few dissenters that existed, right or wrong, have been lost in the crowd. Because it is seen as an amendment that simply put into writing the unwritten tradition, there is not much thought on it that goes on in the public mind. I personally find it interesting that there is so little talk about the implications of the twenty-second amendment, particularly the “lame duck” term that it puts on the president. I asked the opinions of some people in my dorm, and two views emerged. On one side, there were people who say that the twenty-second amendment limits the president by making his last term a “lame duck” term, and in which he is able to do far less than he would normally be able to do, especially in foreign policy, as the leaders of other countries don’t want to deal with someone who will soon be gone. However, others say that the “lame duck” term of the president allows them more freedom to get things done without having to worry about appealing to voters. Regardless of it ramifications however, it is likely to remain in place for quite some time, as it remains out of the public eye. The twenty-second amendment, which acted as a measure to prevent presidents from serving for life, or for as long as they had voter approval, was not an amendment shrouded in controversy nor was it surrounded by heated debates. It was proposed and passed, with minimal opposition, and the amendment has stood largely undiscussed. This footnote in many history classes has some interesting sides to it, yet they remain largely lost to history, as other, more “interesting” events catch the attention of those who look through this time period.
References
"Repeal The twenty-second?." National Review 40.6 (1988): 65. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Truman, Harry S. Truman Speaks. New York: Columbia UP, 1960. Print.
The twenty-second Amendment." Time 57.10 (1951): 23. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
"twenty-second Amendment?." Time 49.13 (1947): 21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
Willis, P. G., and G. L. Willis. "The Politics of the Twenty-Second Amendment." Political Research Quarterly (1952): 469-82. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
Lemelin, Bernard. "Opposition To The 22Nd Amendment: The National Committee Against Limiting The Presidency And Its Activities, 1949-1951." Canadian Review Of American Studies 29.3 (1999): 133. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
a third term, and Wilson lacked the support of his party when he tried to run for a third term. This topic, out of all the topics I might have chosen, was of particular interest to me because it is something that is often glossed over in history classes, with only a brief mention. I thus decided to research it further, wondering if there was any sort of opposition to it, or controversy surrounding it. However, after conducting research it seems that the reason that it is glossed over is because there was not much of a debate over it. Although there have been a few people to speak out against the amendment since its passing, the public, as far as my research could tell me, is in support of it, and there was really only one group that was vocally opposed to it at the time of its proposal. This group, called the National Committee against Limiting the Presidency, was made up of seven men: Daniel Francis Clancy, a journalist and the founder of the committee, Harold Ickes, the internal secretary of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Michael Francis Doyle, the President of the Electoral College, Maury Maverick, a member of the 74th and 75th Congresses, Joseph F.
Guffey, a former Pennsylvanian senator, C.F. Richards, a lawyer from Texas, and Edmond C. Gorrell, an editor of a newspaper in Indiana. Formed towards the beginning of 1949, The National Committee against Limiting the Presidency, despite its ambitions of stopping the twenty-second amendment from being passed, was quite small and inactive. The group was practically doomed from the start, as they suffered from two major encumbrances to their ability to achieve their goal. The first was an inability to gather more members, as well as a lack of action on the part of most of the members of the group. Daniel Francis Clancy and Harold Ickes reportedly contributed the majority of the efforts to present opposition to the amendment. The second reason for the group’s failure was their limited budget, which was brought on by its very limited membership. This lack in money meant that nearly all of their action against the amendment consisted of writing letters to senators asking them to try to block the amendment. (Lemelin, 1999) This group, however, was not the first to speak in support of presidents holding more than two, four-year terms in office. One of the earliest such people was Alexander Hamilton with his plan for how the president should be elected, which was discussed in class. The Hamilton plan of a “life monarch”, who was free from public control, was not exactly what those against the twenty-second amendment had in mind, but it is probably similar to what the supporters of the amendment most likely
feared.
Even after the amendment had been passed there were a few people that argued against the need for the amendment. The most common argument was that voters should be able to decide whether or not a president is worth keeping, and a poor president would not be elected again by the public. One notable person was Ronald Reagan, who had made known his feelings that the number of terms a president serves should be up to the voters, although he stated that he himself would not run for a third term even if the amendment was repealed (“Repeal the twenty-second?”). Another notable person against presidential term limits was Harry S. Truman, after his tenure as president. In fact, Truman called the twenty-second amendment one of the worst amendments in the constitution, second only to prohibition (Truman, 1960). However, there were almost no public, vocal detractors of the amendment while the amendment was in the process of being passed and ratified. This could be attributed to the general consensus that there was a very good chance that it would pass, and thus any effort to rally against it, would be a waste of time and money (Zucker, 1958). The utter lack of controversy surrounding this subject may also be attributed to the general American fear of dictatorships that was intensified by the break down in relations with the Soviet Union. The amendment was also viewed as a way to prevent the Executive branch from becoming unrestrained in power, and bring it back into balance with the judicial branch (Haynes 1989). All of these public concerns are what most likely led to the utter lack of public discussion on the topic. This is best illustrated by two Times magazine articles, which simply state that the amendment was put forth (Times, 1947), and later that it was approved (Times, 1951) with next to no commentary on the subject. One common view that I found in my research was that a big reason for the twenty-second amendment was as backlash for FDR’s four terms in office, especially given his state of health when running for his later terms. This posthumous condemnation of sorts of FDR’s actions may have been a part of the reason behind the majority of Democrats who opposed the amendment (Willis and Willis, 1952), as well as some of the supporters of the amendment. Of course, regardless of the personal motivations of any of the senators, the bill was approved by the required number of Congress members as well as the requisite number of states in order to get it successfully signed into law. Regardless of the reason behind its passing, the twenty-second amendment continues to stand today virtually unopposed. There is no one rallying for its repeal, while shouting that the citizens can be trusted to vote out bad presidents. It may be due to other, more pressing matters on our minds, but when I listen to the news or hear people talking about the government, I wonder why no one brings it up anymore. It has, essentially become a part of our cultural furniture, which everyone simply accepts, and the few dissenters that existed, right or wrong, have been lost in the crowd. Because it is seen as an amendment that simply put into writing the unwritten tradition, there is not much thought on it that goes on in the public mind. I personally find it interesting that there is so little talk about the implications of the twenty-second amendment, particularly the “lame duck” term that it puts on the president. I asked the opinions of some people in my dorm, and two views emerged. On one side, there were people who say that the twenty-second amendment limits the president by making his last term a “lame duck” term, and in which he is able to do far less than he would normally be able to do, especially in foreign policy, as the leaders of other countries don’t want to deal with someone who will soon be gone. However, others say that the “lame duck” term of the president allows them more freedom to get things done without having to worry about appealing to voters. Regardless of it ramifications however, it is likely to remain in place for quite some time, as it remains out of the public eye. The twenty-second amendment, which acted as a measure to prevent presidents from serving for life, or for as long as they had voter approval, was not an amendment shrouded in controversy nor was it surrounded by heated debates. It was proposed and passed, with minimal opposition, and the amendment has stood largely undiscussed. This footnote in many history classes has some interesting sides to it, yet they remain largely lost to history, as other, more “interesting” events catch the attention of those who look through this time period.
References
"Repeal The twenty-second?." National Review 40.6 (1988): 65. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Truman, Harry S. Truman Speaks. New York: Columbia UP, 1960. Print.
The twenty-second Amendment." Time 57.10 (1951): 23. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
"twenty-second Amendment?." Time 49.13 (1947): 21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
Willis, P. G., and G. L. Willis. "The Politics of the Twenty-Second Amendment." Political Research Quarterly (1952): 469-82. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
Lemelin, Bernard. "Opposition To The 22Nd Amendment: The National Committee Against Limiting The Presidency And Its Activities, 1949-1951." Canadian Review Of American Studies 29.3 (1999): 133. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.