The Twenty-Second Amendment: Presidential Term Limits

Most can agree that presidential term limits help ensure a healthy democracy.

This article explores the nuances around the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms, and debates the merits of such restrictions on executive power.

You'll learn the key provisions of the amendment, its ratification history, practical implications for presidents, attempts to alter term limits over time, perspectives for and against, and potential future changes.

Introduction to Presidential Term Limits and the 22nd Amendment

The 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution limits presidents to two elected four-year terms in office. This amendment was passed in 1947, after Franklin D. Roosevelt broke the tradition set by George Washington of serving no more than two terms.

The 22nd Amendment has three key effects:

It limits presidents to a maximum of two elected four-year terms in office, establishing a firm limit after FDR's four elections.
It allows a president who inherits an unexpired term to serve up to 10 years, as long as they win election only twice.
It prohibits anyone who has served two presidential terms from later becoming president or vice president.

While the 22nd Amendment aimed to prevent future presidents from amassing too much power like FDR did, it remains controversial. Supporters argue it protects against authoritarianism and infuses new energy into the executive branch. Critics counter that it limits voter choice and reduces accountability.

Origins of Presidential Term Limits in the United States

When the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, the founders did not include term limits for presidents or any other federal officeholders. However, George Washington set an important precedent by refusing to run for a third term in 1796 after serving two elected terms as president from 1789-1797.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe all followed Washington's two-term tradition. This precedent held for over 140 years until Franklin D. Roosevelt won election to two terms, then broke with tradition by successfully running for third and fourth terms in 1940 and 1944.

Roosevelt's decision was controversial at the time. However, his leadership during World War II muted criticism that he had become too powerful. After his death in 1945, Republicans worked with conservative Democrats to pass the 22nd Amendment in 1947, introducing formal presidential term limits.

Exploring the Key Provisions of the 22nd Amendment

The 22nd Amendment contains two central provisions limiting presidents to two elected terms, with an exception made for a president who inherits an unexpired term:

No person can be elected president more than twice: This establishes an absolute two-term limit for any future president hoping to serve more than eight years.
If someone becomes president without being elected, they can serve up to ten years: For example, if a vice president inherits the presidency mid-term due to death or resignation, they could serve out that term and still run for election twice more.

This means the longest a president can potentially serve is ten years - less than the twelve years FDR spent in office. The Amendment's authors wanted to prevent another immensely long tenure like his in the future.

Debating the Merits of Presidential Term Limits

Reasonable arguments exist on both sides of the debate over presidential term limits imposed by the 22nd Amendment. Supporters believe term limits:

Prevent presidents from amassing dangerous levels of power and becoming authoritarian.
Infuse the executive branch with new energy and ideas each decade.

Opponents counter that term limits:

Unfairly restrict voter choice and the people's will.
Make second-term presidents less accountable since they cannot run for re-election.

There are good-faith arguments on both sides. Ultimately, the 22nd Amendment represents a compromise that allows presidents to serve two full terms - but not to exceed the twelve-year benchmark set by FDR.

What is the maximum time a President may serve under the Twenty-Second Amendment?

The Twenty-Second Amendment, ratified in 1951, limits the president to two elected terms in office, establishing a maximum of 8 years that one person can serve as president.

Specifically, the amendment states that no person who has been elected president for two 4-year terms can be elected again. However, a vice president who assumes the presidency due to death, resignation, or removal of the president is allowed to serve up to 10 years as president.

For example, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms, serving from 1933-1945 before dying in office. The 22nd Amendment was partly passed in response to FDR's long tenure. Now, a president is limited to 8 years maximum, with the exception of a vice president finishing out a term.

So in summary, the maximum time one person can serve as president under the 22nd Amendment is 8 years if elected, or 10 years if a vice president assumes the role mid-term. No person can be elected more than twice for president.

What does the Twenty-Second Amendment limit to two terms?

The Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limits presidents to two four-year terms in office. This amendment was passed by Congress on March 21, 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951.

The amendment states that no person can be elected president more than twice. It also specifies that someone who has served more than two years of another president's term can only be elected once.

So in summary, the Twenty-Second Amendment:

Limits presidents to two elected four-year terms in office
Counts partial terms greater than two years toward the term limit
Does not apply to vice presidents who succeed to the presidency

The purpose of this amendment was to formally establish a tradition set by George Washington, who declined to run for a third term. There was concern that presidents who served too long would accumulate too much power.

However, a president can still serve up to ten years in office if they succeed to the presidency in the middle of another president's term. This is because the amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected president.

Is there a two term limit for the President and ten years possible?

The Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the President to two elected four-year terms in office, for a maximum of eight years. However, a President could theoretically serve up to ten years under special circumstances.

Here is an explanation:

The 22nd Amendment states that no person can be elected President more than twice. This enforces a two-term limit.
Each term lasts four years. So two terms would total eight years as President.
However, a Vice President or other officer that assumes the role of President due to death, resignation, or removal can serve the remainder of that term without it counting as one of their two elected terms.
For example, if a Vice President became President with two years remaining, they could later run for and serve two more full elected four-year terms. That would total ten years (two year partial term + two full four-year terms).

So while eight years is the normal limit, up to ten years is possible under extraordinary circumstances. But no one can be elected more than twice thanks to the 22nd Amendment's two-term limit for elected Presidents.

How does the 25th Amendment limit the President?

The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, clarifies several key issues regarding presidential succession and disability. Specifically, it establishes procedures for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President and responding when the President is unable to discharge their duties.

The key aspects of the 25th Amendment that limit presidential power are:

Vice Presidential Vacancy: The Amendment allows the President to nominate a new Vice President if that office becomes vacant. The nominee must be confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. This ensures the continuity of government by ensuring there is always a Vice President able to assume the presidency if needed.
Presidential Disability: The Amendment establishes a process where the Vice President and cabinet can declare the President as unable to discharge their duties, transferring power to the Vice President as Acting President. The President can later declare their ability to resume duties.
Involuntary Removal: The cabinet and Vice President can also involuntarily remove the President from power by declaring them unable to discharge duties. But the President can challenge this declaration, requiring a 2/3 vote of Congress to uphold the removal.

So in summary, the 25th Amendment limits presidential power by ensuring a mechanism for filling a vacancy in the Vice Presidency and providing a clear process for the voluntary or involuntary transfer of presidential duties to the Vice President in cases where the President is unable to serve.

The Ratification Process of the 22nd Amendment

From Proposal to Congressional Approval

The 22nd Amendment was first proposed in 1947 by members of the 80th United States Congress. After deliberation, the proposed amendment passed with the required two-thirds votes in both the House and Senate. This milestone represented an important first step, sending the amendment to the states for further ratification.

The 22nd Amendment sought to formalize the two-term tradition for presidents that began with George Washington. By enshrining term limits into the Constitution, supporters hoped to prevent future leaders from accumulating excessive power. However, opponents raised concerns about restricting the electoral choices of American voters.

The Path to State Ratification

For the 22nd Amendment to be incorporated into the Constitution, 38 of the then 48 states needed to ratify it through their legislatures or special state conventions. This threshold was met over the next four years.

Controversy arose in a few state ratification votes. For example, the Vermont legislature rejected the amendment in 1947. However, a specially elected convention later ratified it in 1951. Such complexities prolonged the final adoption process.

Incorporating the Amendment into the United States Constitution

In 1951, the requisite number of states completed ratification of the 22nd Amendment. As a result, the National Archivist certified it into the United States Constitution in a formal declaration.

The Amendment decreed that presidents can only be elected to two full four-year terms. A partial term, due to succession after another president's death or resignation, is exempted from the term limit. This grandfather clause allowed Harry Truman to run for another full term in 1952, despite already serving most of Roosevelt's unexpired fourth term.

The ratification of the 22nd Amendment concluded a four-year journey from initial proposal to final Constitutional enshrinement. In limiting presidential tenure, supporters hoped to promote healthy democratic succession and prevent a return to lifelong leaders.

The Practical Implications of the 22nd Amendment

Limitations on Presidential Tenure: How Many Terms Can a President Serve?

The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, limits presidents to two elected four-year terms in office, for a maximum of eight years as president. This amendment was passed in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt's unprecedented four terms in office.

Under the 22nd Amendment, a president who has been elected to two terms is ineligible to be elected again. The only exception is if a vice president or other successor takes over for a president with less than two years left in the term. For example, if a vice president assumes the presidency with only one year left in the term, he or she could be elected to two more four-year terms after that partial term is completed.

So in summary, the maximum amount of time a president can serve is two full four-year terms, for a total of eight years. The only possibility of serving longer would be the succession scenario described above.

Non-Consecutive Terms: Can a President Serve Again After a Break?

The 22nd Amendment does not prevent a president from serving non-consecutive terms. If a president serves one or two full elected terms and then sits out for at least one subsequent term, they would be eligible to run for president again.

There is some historical precedent for this. Grover Cleveland served one full term (1885-1889), lost his re-election bid, but then came back to defeat the incumbent president four years later and serve an additional term (1893-1897). So while uncommon, it is permissible under the 22nd Amendment for a president to take a four year break after their two terms and then run again.

The amendment restricts presidents to being elected only twice. As long as they sit out an election cycle in between, they could theoretically serve an unlimited number of non-consecutive terms.

The Question of Serving Three Terms: Is It Possible?

Given the two-term limit codified in the 22nd Amendment, it would be unconstitutional for any president to run for and serve three consecutive full terms. The only scenario in which this could hypothetically occur would be if a vice president assumed the role of president with less than two years left in a term, and then got elected to two additional terms after finishing out that partial term.

For example, if a vice president became president with only one year left of a term, then won election twice after that, they would serve nearly three full terms. However, at least two years of one of those terms would have been fulfilling the role of vice president who assumed the presidency, rather than serving as elected president.

Barring this unlikely succession scenario, the 22nd Amendment makes it essentially impossible for any president to serve three full elected terms. The maximum amount possible is two full elected terms totaling eight years. After that point, presidents would be ineligible for election even if they took an extended break between terms. So serving three consecutive complete terms as elected president is unconstitutional given current term limits.

Attempts to Repeal or Amend Presidential Term Limits

While the 22nd Amendment has remained unchanged, this section will summarize subsequent Congressional efforts and proposals to modify or repeal presidential term limits.

Reagan's Era and the Push to Repeal Term Limits

In the 1980s, there were efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment to allow Ronald Reagan to run for a third term as President. Reagan was a popular president, and some felt his leadership was needed for more than two terms.

In 1987, Representative Guy Vander Jagt (R-MI) introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment. The bill gained some support but ultimately did not pass. Those in favor argued that the amendment restricted choice and that a popular president should be allowed to run again. Opponents said the 22nd Amendment protected against a "de facto monarchy" and should remain.

The Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment During Clinton's Presidency

In 1997, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD) introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment during Bill Clinton's presidency. The bill was seen by some as a response to Clinton's impeachment proceedings.

However, the bill received little serious consideration. Most felt that presidential term limits were important for democracy. The bill failed to move out of committee in the Republican-controlled House.

Recent Congressional Resolutions to Alter Presidential Term Limits

In recent years, a handful of largely symbolic Congressional resolutions have been introduced to alter or repeal presidential term limits:

In 2013, Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) introduced a resolution to repeal the 22nd Amendment entirely. It failed to advance.
In 2019, Representative Tom Marino (R-PA) introduced an amendment to allow presidents to serve up to 12 years (3 terms), either consecutively or non-consecutively. It also stalled.

While none of these resolutions gained traction, they illustrate that debate continues around the restrictions the 22nd Amendment places on the presidency. However, presidential term limits remain widely popular with the public.

Exploring Scholarly and Public Perspectives on Presidential Term Limits

This section summarizes some of the key perspectives around modifying or repealing presidential term limits.

Insights from Political Scientists on the 22nd Amendment

Political scientists have debated the merits of term limits from both practical and philosophical standpoints. Some argue term limits reduce accountability by making "lame duck" presidents in their second term. Others note incumbency advantages may help popular presidents stay in power too long. Most agree the 22nd Amendment aimed to find balance between experience and refreshing leadership.

Gauging Public Opinion Through Gallup Polls and Other Data

Public opinion on modifying term limits has shifted over time. A 1947 Gallup poll found 65% supported limiting presidents to two terms. By 2021, several polls showed around 60% opposed changing or repealing limits. Support differs by party, with more Republicans open to extending limits for popular presidents.

Conservative and Liberal Views on Presidential Term Limits

Views depend partly on incumbent support and partly on beliefs about governance. Some conservatives have pushed repealing limits when aligned with the president. Others see virtue in refreshing leadership. Liberals more consistently oppose extending term limits, though some noted FDR's long tenure was beneficial.

Legal and Constitutional Challenges in Amending Term Limits

Amending or repealing the 22nd Amendment would likely face significant legal and constitutional hurdles.

Understanding the Article V Amendment Process

The Constitution provides two methods for proposing amendments:

Two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate can vote to propose an amendment, or
Two-thirds of state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

To be ratified and added to the Constitution, three-fourths of state legislatures or ratifying conventions must then approve the proposed amendment. This rigorous process underscores the intention for amending the Constitution to require broad consensus.

Potential Supreme Court Challenges to Amendment Changes

If an amendment repealing or modifying presidential term limits were to pass, it could potentially face legal challenges arguing it violates other constitutional principles. The Supreme Court may have to weigh questions around the amendment process, presidential eligibility, voting rights, and more. The outcome would be difficult to predict.

The Implications of Repeal for Donald Trump and Future Presidents

If term limits were repealed, some legal scholars argue it could make Donald Trump and other former presidents eligible to run again. However, the repealed amendment's "grandfather clause" suggests otherwise, and the issue would likely end up debated in the courts. Ultimately, the impact on Trump and future presidents remains ambiguous.

Conclusion: Reflecting on the Legacy and Future of the 22nd Amendment

Assessing the Impact of the 22nd Amendment on Presidential Legacies

The 22nd Amendment has shaped the modern presidency by placing term limits on the office. This has affected presidential legacies in a few key ways:

Presidents must accomplish their key priorities within a defined timeframe. They have a maximum of 8 years to enact their agendas before leaving office. This puts pressure on presidents to prioritize their goals.
The amendment has made the presidency more open to outsider candidates. With term limits in place, there are more open elections without an incumbent running. This creates opportunities for candidates from outside the political establishment.
Term limits prevent presidents from consolidating long-term power. While the amendment limits a president's tenure, it also protects against a single leader amassing excessive control through multiple terms.

Overall, term limits have ensured a regular injection of new perspectives into the presidency while curtailing the potential for authoritarian rule. However, they also force presidents to govern with an eye on the clock.

The Future of Presidential Term Limits in American Politics

There have been occasional calls to repeal or modify the 22nd Amendment, but significant change is unlikely. However, several factors could impact term limits in the future:

If life expectancies continue growing, voters may support longer presidential terms. The founders did not anticipate modern medicine extending careers.
A major crisis could raise arguments for flexible term limits, with voters wanting to retain experienced leaders. However, such changes would face constitutional hurdles.
Public opinion polling shows a majority of Americans still support term limits. But support for modifications, such as allowing non-consecutive terms, has grown.

While the 22nd Amendment altered the office of the presidency, its core restrictions will likely stay intact. However, the political landscape can shift quickly. As with all constitutional issues, vigorous civic debate shapes American democracy.