AHC: 2nd Term President Repeals 22nd Amendment

Like it says, the challenge is to have a second term president actively campaign and successfully repeal the 22nd amendment to the constitution.

Pick any president you want post-FDR and share some PoDs
 
Reagan or Clinton would've been the only two to try to do it. If I remember correctly, I think Reagan was apposed to the 22nd Amendment, and Clinton, because it seemed like he just loved being President. Neither one would succeed as the opposite party controlled congress in both of their second terms.
 
Like it says, the challenge is to have a second term president actively campaign and successfully repeal the 22nd amendment to the constitution.

Pick any president you want post-FDR and share some PoDs

You DO realize that no president can do this, right?

That it has to pass by a supermajority in Congress, and then be ratified by a supermajority of states?

Just NOT going to happen.
 
You'd have to have an administration that's vastly more popular than any since FDR-and arguably FDR himself-at the height of his Congressional influence-would have had trouble pulling off a comporable feat as persuading Congress to pass an amendment-and persuading the states to ratify that amendment-designed for the purpose of keeping him in power. Even the most bipartisan member of the opposition isn't going to vote for that. The only way I could see it happening is if there was an equally popular ex-President on the other side who would be able to run if the 22nd amendment was overturned-but even that's a huge stretch.
 
I can't see this happening without either a) the amendment saying that it only applies to presidents who take office after it is passed or b) the amendment not taking effect until after the president leaves office.
 
Truman campaigns against the 22nd Amendment?

Why should he? After all, even if he wants to run again, he's specifically exempted from it. And anyway, the topic is how someone gets the Amendment *repealed*, not how he prevents its ratification. (It was ratified in 1951, at a time when he wasn't very popular, so it's doubtful his opposing it would stop its ratification in any event.)
 
You DO realize that no president can do this, right? (1)

That it has to pass by a supermajority in Congress, and then be ratified by a supermajority of states?

Just NOT going to happen.

1) A lot of people do not know the hard mechanics of introducing amendment legislation in the Congress.

Unfortunately, in fiction and in fact you see Presidents holding solemn "signing ceremonies" for congressionally passed constitutional amendments (before they are sent to the states). Said ceremonies were/are completely meaningless. Not only because they are passed by super-majorities, but because amendments do not get "signed into law" by the POTUS. He can neither sign the amendment nor issue a "Veto", directly or by Pocket Veto means (doubly silly since its going to the states anyway:rolleyes:).

But the study of American Civics isn't a big deal apparently in US classrooms K-12. Or at least they weren't when I attended them.

I can't see this happening without either a) the amendment saying that it only applies to presidents who take office after it is passed or b) the amendment not taking effect until after the president leaves office.

Exactly. Consider: When you have term limits for the presidency or state governorships, it is nearly impossible politically to undo them. After all, it is the US Congress and state legislatures respectively who see within their respective bodies many ambitious people looking to be the NEXT POTUS or governor. But dynasties have a tendency to block that.
 
Top