AH Challenge: Repeal the 22nd Amendment

Wolfpaw

Banned
I was with a friend today and we got to talking about term-limits and whether or not the 22nd Amendment is a good thing. Anywas, it got me thinking.

With a POD of your choosing (so long as it's after the Amendment was ratified, obviously) find a way to repeal the 22nd Amendment or, at the very least, render it null and void.

Note: To repeal a Constitutional amendment, it must be voided by another amendment

Note: For those not familiar with how amendments are passed, 3/4 of the State legislatures must ratify the amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.
 
Note: For those not familiar with how amendments are passed, 3/4 of the State legislatures must ratify the amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.

Not quite, there are two ways to propose an Amendment and two ways to ratify it. I think the one repealing Prohibition was ratified via conventions in 3/4s of the States.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Not quite, there are two ways to propose an Amendment and two ways to ratify it. I think the one repealing Prohibition was ratified via conventions in 3/4s of the States.

Indeed? I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info!
 
There's the entire 'Watchmen' idea. Watergate is butterflied away, somehow, and Nixon, keeping up his popularity and image as a strong leader and a dignified American statesman picks up the idea himself and pushes for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment near the end of his second term.

If it's successful, viola. Nixon probably runs and easily wins over whoever the Democrats run in 1976, provided there isn't some sort of backlash, of course. If it's not successful, Nixon looks like a power hungry politico, much like OTL, only without the paranoid associations that came with Watergate. He's probably more fondly remembered in that case.

Then again, you could always change it to allow for only two consecutive terms. That might actually prove to be more interesting later down the line, say, around last year or so with former President Bill Clinton entering the Democratic primary against Senator Barack Obama rather than his wife doing so.
 

Ibn Warraq

Banned
There's the entire 'Watchmen' idea. Watergate is butterflied away, somehow, and Nixon, keeping up his popularity and image as a strong leader and a dignified American statesman picks up the idea himself and pushes for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment near the end of his second term.

If it's successful, viola. Nixon probably runs and easily wins over whoever the Democrats run in 1976, provided there isn't some sort of backlash, of course. If it's not successful, Nixon looks like a power hungry politico, much like OTL, only without the paranoid associations that came with Watergate. He's probably more fondly remembered in that case.

Then again, you could always change it to allow for only two consecutive terms. That might actually prove to be more interesting later down the line, say, around last year or so with former President Bill Clinton entering the Democratic primary against Senator Barack Obama rather than his wife doing so.

That was one of the weaker aspects of Watchmen.

In order for the Amendment to be successful it would need to get the support of both two thirds of the House and the Senate as well as 38 out of the 50 State Legislatures.

Both Houses of Congress were firmly democratic and there's no way they would have voted that way while a Republican was President.

The only way it would have passed was for there to be a way to make it not apply to Nixon. For example, have the Amendment not go into affect until 1980.
 
That was one of the weaker aspects of Watchmen.

In order for the Amendment to be successful it would need to get the support of both two thirds of the House and the Senate as well as 38 out of the 50 State Legislatures.

Both Houses of Congress were firmly democratic and there's no way they would have voted that way while a Republican was President.

The only way it would have passed was for there to be a way to make it not apply to Nixon. For example, have the Amendment not go into affect until 1980.
That's not necessarily true. Nixon did have popularity across the board (Many Democrats included) and en masse, and parties weren't as staunchly partisan as they'd become in later decades. Similarly, there's easily the possibility of a movement among the populace (if Nixon himself supports it, which he did -in passing- and likely would if not impeached) in support of the idea and demonstrations to follow suit which would pressure politicians. Of course, that doesn't mean it'll pass, but it'll be competitive to some degree.

Interesting tid bit, btw; did you know that Nixon's talking about seeking a third term is what actually made George Lucas think about power and tyranny and come up with the idea for the Empire and Emperor in Star Wars?
 
Last edited:
Would not a smaller POD be needed to prevent the Amendment being ratified, or perhaps prevent it from getting two thirds in one or both Houses in the first place?
 
Interesting tid bit, btw; did you know that Nixon's talking about seeking a third term is what actually made George Lucas think about power and tyranny and come up with the idea for the Empire and Emperor in Star Wars?

Interesting. I thought he based it off Nazism what with the ever present use of red and black as the empire's colours (plus the white from the storm-troopers)...I think even the empire's flag was supposed to be the black imperial emblem in on red field with white inside the emblem.

Of course, no reason Lucas wouldn't mix and match - So Nixon + Nazism = Evil Empire. Just imagine the Emperor speaking like Nixon.....



As for the OP, I think this has to one of the harder challenges. Hard to see it getting repealed, even if Nixon has mass popularity and no Watergate. Much more likely as had been said is just to get it modified (via another amendment of course) which only limits the 22nd amendment to just two consecutive terms. As it is now and then, the amendment basically made sure that the other party got a shot at the presidency by ensuring that any uber-popular incumbent doesn't pull a Roosevelt and keep the other party out of presidential office for over a decade. However having a limit be 2 consecutive terms would allow for fresh candidates (and thus a chance for the other party to get it's candidate into the white house) while removing the lame-duck syndrome as the incumbent in his (or later "her") second term could still run for election after 4 years and so they wouldn't necessarily become a lame duck by the time of the next election campaign.
 
It's pretty hard to imagine even the most "bipartisan" politician supporting a constitutional amendment designed to ensure the re-election of a member of the opposing party. The 22nd Amendment is "sticky" in that way -- there's a built-in constituency that's pretty much always going to be large enough to block its repeal.
 
Interesting. I thought he based it off Nazism what with the ever present use of red and black as the empire's colours (plus the white from the storm-troopers)...I think even the empire's flag was supposed to be the black imperial emblem in on red field with white inside the emblem.

Of course, no reason Lucas wouldn't mix and match - So Nixon + Nazism = Evil Empire.

Lucas based the Empire on Nazi Germany to a large degree (and the villains of samurai movies), but Nixon got the concept ball rolling.

Just imagine the Emperor speaking like Nixon.....
"And people have to know, is their Emperor a crook? Well I'm not a crook. I've earned the right to kill every Jedi I have."

As for the OP, I think this has to one of the harder challenges. Hard to see it getting repealed, even if Nixon has mass popularity and no Watergate. Much more likely as had been said is just to get it modified (via another amendment of course) which only limits the 22nd amendment to just two consecutive terms. As it is now and then, the amendment basically made sure that the other party got a shot at the presidency by ensuring that any uber-popular incumbent doesn't pull a Roosevelt and keep the other party out of presidential office for over a decade. However having a limit be 2 consecutive terms would allow for fresh candidates (and thus a chance for the other party to get it's candidate into the white house) while removing the lame-duck syndrome as the incumbent in his (or later "her") second term could still run for election after 4 years and so they wouldn't necessarily become a lame duck by the time of the next election campaign.
I think it's reasonable enough, especially for Nixon. Republicans supported him; Democrats (to a large degree supported him); and almost everyone else supported him. Nixon also carried that fear of trying something different syndrome. America had gone through upheaval, and Nixon had dealt with that, and was America's safety blanket.

It's pretty hard to imagine even the most "bipartisan" politician supporting a constitutional amendment designed to ensure the re-election of a member of the opposing party. The 22nd Amendment is "sticky" in that way -- there's a built-in constituency that's pretty much always going to be large enough to block its repeal.
The parties weren't of solid ideological blocks. There isn't one Conservative party, and one Liberal party as there is today. The Democrats had a Liberal, Moderate and Conservative faction as did the GOP. And Nixon played to each faction. Western Conservatives/Libertarians mistook his anti-communist language for anti-government language, he had middle America locked up from his pro-Vietnam and patriotic language, and his domestic policies rubbed Liberals a good way, as well as minorities. So partisanship really relied on party name a lot of the time. It's basically like cheering for the Packers against the Bears. Ain't too much of a difference except superficialities and different people, but a loyalty remains nonetheless, and that's the major thing that could derail an attempt for a repeal.

But, as said, Nixon had popular support among Americans, popular support among a swath of politicians (many, many Democrats included), and it would likely be a heated debate.
 
I do not think that it is likely to be to promote a specific candidate. I am sure that there would not be a Consitutional amendment along the lines that "President Mary Smith" is allowed to be reelected indefinitely. However wonderful the said President was.

Rather I suppose that it would be on the issue of principle
 
I think this is an amendment that simply can't get repealed. There's really no bad consequences to go along with it. Any President that proposes the Amendment themselves is going to be under fire of, "He wants to turn this nation into a monarchy!"

The President would need a 100% approval rating. As soon as s/he proposes the Amendment, the approval rating would drop. Someone else, a Senator or other politician, would need to propose the Amendment and then would face an uphill battle getting the Amendment approved.

It'd be much easier to just not let the Amendment get passed in the first place. If FDR had either lost or handed the baton to another Democrat in 1940, then I doubt the Republican majority would have felt the need or desire to pass the 22nd.

Or if Truman lost to Dewey, the GOP might feel like they could get a three or four termer in. Either way, I think once you get the first three-termer, someone's going to propose a cap on Presidential terms and it's going to pass.
 
Top