AH Challenge: Void the 22nd!

Another way to go for a late 70's or early 80s repeal would be by having a messy 25th Amendment succession crisis during the Nixon years (which isn't too hard to see...just stop or delay Ford's confirmation and give him a medical or psychological crisis). Depending on the circumstances of the next government, throwing in a clause repealing the 22nd may be part of the political deal involved in getting an amendment to fix problems in the 25th's procedures revealed during the crisis up to 2/3s...
 
The trick with repeal of the 22nd Amendment is that any President popular enough within his own party to run for a third term will scare the other party enough that they won't support repeal. It'd take a herculean effort to find someone popular enough on both sides of the aisle to justify a repeal applicable to the current President.

The most likely form of repeal would be an amendment that splits the middle, something like this (many thanks to Lord Grattan for the bulk of the text, I hope you don't mind me copying rather than retyping it all):

"The Twenty-second Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Any person eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, or act as President, may be elected to the office of President any number of times. Any person who has held the office of President of the United States for two full consecutive terms shall be ineligible to serve as President for the following term. This Article shall become operative immediately upon its ratification, but 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."


This provides for repeal of the 22nd, which members of both major parties have attempted to do in every Congress, without enabling a three, four, or more-term Presidency, and would not appear to be enacted for any particular candidate.

This amendment might also include language to allow naturalized citizens to serve as President, which has also been a popular potential reform to the office.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Another way to go for a late 70's or early 80s repeal would be by having a messy 25th Amendment succession crisis during the Nixon years (which isn't too hard to see...just stop or delay Ford's confirmation and give him a medical or psychological crisis). Depending on the circumstances of the next government, throwing in a clause repealing the 22nd may be part of the political deal involved in getting an amendment to fix problems in the 25th's procedures revealed during the crisis up to 2/3s...
This sounds intriguing.

As a side note, mention has been made of the potential difficulty of shoving this amendment through state legislatures. But what if it were to be considered in state conventions? (Before I am castigated for ignorance, I will admit that I honestly am unsure as to what in the hell a "convention" is in this sense.)
 
Wolfpaw: You could have a national referendum. The easiest way to do that would be to propose it in a census year, and just tack the question onto the census form. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone. :p
 

Eurofed

Banned
This provides for repeal of the 22nd, which members of both major parties have attempted to do in every Congress, without enabling a three, four, or more-term Presidency, and would not appear to be enacted for any particular candidate.

This amendment might also include language to allow naturalized citizens to serve as President, which has also been a popular potential reform to the office.

You and Lord Grattan are quite right, the key is to narrow the term limit to a consecutive two-term limit. Both parties would appreciate the chance to run again after a term interval a former Prez that remains popular.

Concerning the naturalized citizen issue, I propose the following:

"The Twenty-second Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States who has been for twenty-five years a Citizen of the United States, shall be eligible to the Office of President of the United States. Any person eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, or act as President, may be elected to the office of President any number of times. Any person who has held the office of President of the United States for two full consecutive terms shall be ineligible to serve as President for the following term. This Article shall become operative immediately upon its ratification, but 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."

 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Wolfpaw: You could have a national referendum. The easiest way to do that would be to propose it in a census year, and just tack the question onto the census form. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone. :p
I could kiss you, but I feel like that would just be awkward for both of us.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Wolfpaw: You could have a national referendum. The easiest way to do that would be to propose it in a census year, and just tack the question onto the census form. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone. :p
Wait, is that a legal way to amend the Constitution?

I thought 2/3 of both Congressional Houses, if 3/4 of state legislatures approve it, or if 3/4 of the states hold "conventions" (which is a very vague term, frankly) that support the proposed amendment.

I don't see anything in there about a national referendum. So where does that put us?
 
Oops, I forgot this isn't Canada- you can't do that in the US. :eek: It has to go through state legislatures, which is a rather dicey proposition. Especially in the South, with their Confederate-era fetish about term limits- two 2 year terms or 1 four year term for most Southern governors until the 1970s. Bill Clinton wasn't able to amend the Arkansan constitution to allow four year terms until 1983, for example.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Oops, I forgot this isn't Canada- you can't do that in the US.
No we can't, which I view as unfortunate since that'd be far more democratic. But I suppose that would make it easier for a potential popular dictator to pass amendments easier. What a curious catch-22.

The main thing that interests me is this bit about state "conventions" which is a rather ambiguous term. I don't know if its some sort of state-wide referendum or basically some pseudo-state legistlature where both elected officials and citizens just sort of meet up and hold a vote to ratify something or what.

P.S. You're needed at the Suez thread.
 
No we can't, which I view as unfortunate since that'd be far more democratic. But I suppose that would make it easier for a potential popular dictator to pass amendments easier. What a curious catch-22.

The main thing that interests me is this bit about state "conventions" which is a rather ambiguous term. I don't know if its some sort of state-wide referendum or basically some pseudo-state legistlature where both elected officials and citizens just sort of meet up and hold a vote to ratify something or what.

P.S. You're needed at the Suez thread.

The "state conventions" method was used to repeal prohibition. I believe it worked as a special election to elect delegates who met and then decided on the amendment. Would probably be a lot more complicated to set up post-Voting Rights Act.
 
Top