Resolved: The XXII Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.
Resolved: The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.
Peace and love!
Resolved: The XXII Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.
To understand the importance of checking the President"s power, you have to understand the extent to which the President possesses power, and thus the chance of corruption. The President, being the commander-in-chief has control over the largest, most powerful, and feared military in the world , as well as advanced cyber warfare capable of taking over nuclear facilities with the most lethal malware ever created , and drones that can take out any desired target at a moment"s notice. Surveillance has also become an asset marking the post-9/11 era, allowing the President to have access to any citizen"s email, text messages, location, web history, etc.  The ability for a President to hold this amount of power over long periods of time, indefinite amounts of time can be dangerous, thus a check on the President"s power, a term limit, is important to prevent corruption.
A past President, Calvin Coolidge testifies, "It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshippers. They are consistently, and for the most part sincerely assured of their greatness. They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment."
The entire concept of the role inherently leads to corruption after long lengths of time. The longer a person holds power, the less they are able to understand the perspective of those not in power (citizens) , as well as the more opportunities they have for shortcutting the law. And once you cross the line once, the line begins to fade. Abolishing term limits would result in an increased chance of corruption at the presidential level, which extremely dangerous to the welfare of the American people.
Another reason term limits should be retained is to lower entry barriers. If a president serves after a long period of time, the people grow used to obeying the leader, and the leader grows used to commanding. This makes sense if you have the same leader for over a decade or so. As well as because the longer a President serves, the more likely they are to become re-elected again the next term due to, "opportunities to preside over school-opening ceremonies, and meet likely contributors. Their tenure in office also allows them to build support by performing casework for constituents and to put themselves and their positions in the news by giving speeches in Congress, issuing statements, holding press conferences, or appearing on talk radio or television programs."  This creates an established incumbent in the nation, which is bad for many reasons. Firstly because it creates a barrier to entry for potentially good candidates. Districts may prefer the new candidate based on policy agreement but did not notice them on the ballot because of the high entry barrier created by an established incumbent. More evidence of this is in empirical research done that shows that an established incumbent holds an advantage of 10 to 12% of the the national vote starting off . Retaining term limits lowers the entry barrier, which results in increased competition in legislative and executive elections. This increased competition broadens and hones the issues debated by candidates to those held by the voters, thus resulting in candidates elected that represent the American people, which wouldn"t necessarily happen with an established incumbent.
The final point I want to bring up, and the most important, is the corruption of the Supreme Court. If a President is able to be in power for three, or four terms, they would be able to appoint many of the judges on the SC; which would tip the balance of ideologies in favor of the President, which is detrimental to the integrity and objectiveness of the court. Having a corrupt SC (one that favors the President) is extremely detrimental because the SC has power over all other branches. A corrupt SC is the worst thing that could possibly happen to our political system. This is why retaining presidential term limits is crucial.
Focusing now on Kasmic"s first point, he argues that a President who has already served two terms in office should be allowed to serve for a third term because he/she is the most experienced candidate. While this makes sense initially, that an experienced candidate would make a good president, it's not necessarily true when we actually analyze it.
John Tures investigated the issue, and when he ranked all of the past US presidents in order from most experienced to least experienced, and then compared it to the Political Science Quarterly ranking of most effective presidents; he found that there was no correlation between experience and effectiveness. Actually, the presidents with the least amount of experience were significantly more effective than those with substantial experience . What we can draw from this is that the idea that an experienced candidate makes a good President is not necessarily true. Thus, the idea that there is a negative impact from barring a president from seeking a third term based on experience is unfounded.
The second point Kasmic brings up is that the people"s sovereignty is violated when they are not allowed to re-elect a President for a third term. Yet this creates a paradox; if the argument is that the people"s sovereignty is violated by being unable to re-elect a past president, their sovereignty would be violated even further by repealing the 22nd Amendment, as 81% of Americans support the amendment .
Sources in comments
My opponent makes three arguments against the resolution. I will address each in turn.
The given link describes how the other branches check the power of the POTUS. Kasmic posits that interbranch checks are adequate enough to stop corruption of a long-serving President. Yet the effects of a long-serving POTUS inherently makes their checking ability less effective. For example, a long-serving POTUS would appoint many of the members of the Supreme Court. Thus their ability to check the President as an individual branch is negated because the court will inherently vote in the POTUS"s favor (the POTUS will nominate judges who will vote in his/her favor.) The the Supreme Court also has the ability to rule any of Congress"s laws unconstitutional. Thus a President in control of the Supreme Court would have control of Congress as well. Having worked with Congress for longer lengths of time results in the President being able to have stronger connections with Congressmen, and thus a greater ability to influence their vote into his/her favor. Thus hindering the Congress"s ability to act on its checks to the POTUS. So as we can see, the effects of a long-serving President inherently negate the effectiveness of a checks and balances system, thus increasing chances of corruption.
Kasmic furthermore argues that (b) a POTUS cannot abuse power because it is virtually impossible for them to have a private conversation due to recording devices. This doesn"t make sense, as there is technology that detects if there are any recording devices, or bugs in the room you are in. Which you can browse here . If these devices are available to the public, you can be sure that the Secret Service has them, and even better versions that they use to make sure rooms aren"t bugged. Regardless, the POTUS has high level security that would eliminate anything entering the rooms, thus not allowing concealed recording devices to even enter. Even if it does, they can detect it easily through bug detecting devices. The evidence Kasmic brings up is based on Mitt Romney at a dinner table. Kasmic has no evidence that a President, in the modern age, has been bugged in a top-secret discussion, thus his assertion is unwarranted, as well as debunked.
As I said earlier, the crux of Kasmic"s rebuttal to the argument is trying to prove that corruption is unlikely to happen. He does this by arguing that (a) it is unlikely that a President would want to seek a third term. This isn"t true, as Bill Clinton , Eisenhower , Reagan , Grant , Cleveland , and Wilson  all *wanted* to run for third terms. He also argues that (b) it is unlikely for the POTUS would attempt to abuse power. I extend all of my argumentation from R2 regarding how the position of POTUS inherently leads to corruption, which Kasmic completely dropped, to negate this point (the research on power over time, a POTUS testifying, and more opportunities for shortcuts.) Kasmic also argues that " it isn't likely that a President would be re-elected. I extend over all of my argumentation from R2 to negate this point; regarding how a sitting POTUS is significantly more likely to get re-elected.
So, in conclusion, abolishing term limits makes corruption in the office of the POTUS substantially more likely. Given how much damage a corrupt President could do (see R2 regarding how much power the POTUS has), especially given how abolishing term limits not only eliminates the vital check it individually provides, but it also inherently hinders the effectiveness of the other checks. Thus, the retainment of term limits is paramount.
Moving on to my other contentions, my response to Kasmic"s rebuttal of my second contention is simple, as his rebuttal is merely that Presidents are unlikely to run for a third term. Thus I extend my evidence of many Presidents wanting to run for a third term, as well as the fact that being allowed to seek a third term would incentivize Presidents to take it.
Kasmic attacks my final contention, that a long-serving President would be able to appoint the majority of judges on the Supreme Court, thus corrupting the Judicial branch, by arguing that Congress is already able to check this power by having the ability to approve or block nominees. Yet, this is unlikely to happen given the amount public disapproval associated with blocking nominations . Furthermore, as I argued earlier, the longer the POTUS serves, the more connections and influence he gets with Congress, thus making a vote in his favor more likely. (Kasmic"s second point is wrong because it's not logical to believe that any POTUS could appoint 15 judges and not have approval ratings plummet, as well as everyone thinking he"s an absolute dumba$$.)
Regardless, I'll move on to Kasmic"s last contention, sovereignty. This argument is negated right officials he bat by weighing analysis, the amount of impact this argument has is little because the people still have sovereignty, they are still able to elect who represents them. The impact of abolishing term limits ultimately outweighs this slightly increased sovereignty, that the majority of people don't even want in the first place.
Peace and love
Sources in comments
kasmic forfeited this round.