The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,568 times Debate No: 73986
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (72)
Votes (4)

 

kasmic

Pro

R: The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

4Rounds/72hrs/4,000
1st round acceptance
No new arguements in last round.comment
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I agree to the rules, and accept the debate challenge.

Please begin.
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

Thank you Blade-of-Truth for accepting this debate. Good Luck!

Resolve: The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

This Amendment sets term limits for election to the office of the President of the United States. For full text follow this link. (1)

C1: Redundant/limits:


This Amendment’s function is largely redundant. Natural “Term limits” exist in a Democratic Republic like the U.S. They are called elections. Setting a term limit mitigates the natural function of elections. The people should have the power to determine if a politician has served enough terms as President. If the people feel this is the case. They could simple vote that politician out of office. This leaves the only unique function of this amendment to limit the choice of the people. I contend that the people should retain the sovereignty to decide when a politician is not suitable for the office of President through voting.

C2: The Best Person for the job:

The Constitution of the United States lays the duties of the executive branch of government on a single person, the President of the United States of America. Being President of the United States requires incredible skill and poise. Because of the high level of competence required of the office it is obvious that the people of the United States would want the best most qualified person available to fill this position.

When Americans weigh who to vote into this office it is often discussed who is “qualified.” Not surprising, often when people will not vote for a particular candidate, the reason given is lack of experience. It is not hard to understand why. A President who has experience is likely to be able to manage the tasks required better than one who has little or no experience.

Imagine yourself a hiring manager and you are looking for an employee. In front of you a stack of resumes’. Are you going to look through and remove from consideration any and all candidates that have experience? Of course not!? If anything, experience is a positive impact on who may be chosen. Before even allowing the American people to consider who the best person for the office may be, the XXII Amendment of the United States Constitution does just that. It removes from consideration those with the most experience. This is clearly foolish.

Conclusion:

The repeal of the XXII amendment would keep experienced candidates in consideration, allow our Democratic Republic to function as intended via elections, and allow Americans to decide for themselves. Therefore, the XXII Amendment should be repealed.

Sources:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution

Blade-of-Truth

Con

Pro is challenging the status quo, meaning that the burden falls on Pro to show why we should change the current Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment. For Pro to win, he must overcome any and all challenges presented here in this debate.

Arguments

I. The 22nd Amendment Exists for our own Protection.

According to DDO's 'Big Issues' summary, "term limits ensure a wider range of perspectives in government and prevent power from being consolidated in one person, which could easily happen due to the popularity or privilege of a particular individual." [1]

What this essentially means is two things:

1) Term limits ensure that elected public officials cannot remain in power indefinitely.

2) Term limits offer an automatic check on consolidation of power.


When Colonial America was getting started we were constantly abused by an English King who forced such high taxes on basic goods that we were unable to even afford them. After our Declaration of Independence, we made sure to never suffer the fate that we fought so hard to escape from. A fate of tyranny, suffering, destitution, and famine, all because of one man's corrupt and greedy ways. Part of our effort to never allow such a thing to happen again came in the form of our 22nd Amendment. One that ensures that we never allow a single individual to grow so powerful that they'd actually be able to negatively affect our ability to live. By repealing such protections, we run the risk of facing the same hardships that our ancestors fought so hard to break free from. There's no good reason to believe that it won't ever happen again, especially with the fact that history truly does repeat itself. [2] We must remember that it was put in place to protect us, and with a staggering 81% support for the amendment here on DDO, I believe it's clear that we still wish to avoid such a fate.

II. Article V. of the U.S. Constitution

I would like to bring to the audiences attention Article V of the Constitution - which describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. [3] What this means is that even our amendments aren't set in stone, and such a fact creates an opportunity for me to raise a counter-plan to Pros position. You see, Pro wishes to repeal the amendment, yet fails to realize that he's totally bypassing the opportunity to simply "amend" the amendment. Thus, my counter-plan would be to allow us first to amend the amendment before actually taking the extreme route of totally repealing it. We have every right to amend the amendment to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term. So, why should we automatically jump to a position of repealing the amendment altogether when we can simply amend it should the need truly arise?

To be fair, 39% of democrats want Obama to run for a 3rd term. [4] However, after crunching the numbers, democrats only make up 41% of our population [5], and only 39% of them actually want him to have a 3rd term. So: 320,090,857 people * .41 = 131,237,251 * .39 = 51,182,528.

51,182,528 / 320,090,857 = rounds up to 16% of the population. So, in reality, less than 16% of the population actually want Obama to serve another term.

In the event that a president comes along who truly has a majority support from the public for a 3rd term, then there is no reason why we can't simply amend the amendment, rather than repealing it fully. Thus, I firmly believe that my counter-plan is a better alternative than Pros position.

In Conlusion,

I have presented both a counter-argument and a counter-plan. I believe the former shows the potential harms of Pro's position, and the latter reflects a more reasonable solution.

Thank you.

Sources

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://historum.com...
[3] http://www.archives.gov...
[4] https://today.yougov.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

I would accept the burden of proof Con claims that I have to “show why we should change the current Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment.” Though Con has presented a counter plan, splitting the burden between he and I.

Rebuttals:

Con contends that “The 22nd Amendment Exists for our own Protection.”

Several checks exists outside of this amendment that restrict indefinite power. Indeed the legislative branch has the ability to impeach and remove a president from office, also as already mentioned in last round, voting is the primary power by which the people check the power of the executive. Thus, as I concluded in my opening arguments this amendment is largely redundant and does more to check the power of the people than the power of the executive.

Con contends that “Part of our effort (in the US revolution from Britain) to never allow such a thing to happen again came in the form of our 22nd Amendment. One that ensures that we never allow a single individual to grow so powerful that they'd actually be able to negatively affect our ability to live.”

The 22nd amendment was not passed until 1951. Surely my opponent is not implying that in 1951, almost 200 years from the revolution, we finally found a way to protect ourselves from the tyranny of an English King.

This ends Con’s only contention. This argument does not refute even slightly the fact that this amendment limits the power of the people, and only serves to show the redundancy of the amendment. Thus the impact of this argument is virtually nonexistent.

Con then presents a counter plan.

Con here essentially argues that if the people decided we had a president that should serve another term we could amend the constitution to allow it. He states “We have every right to amend the amendment to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term.”

While amending is not the same as repealing my opponents reasoning in support of amending is an endorsement of my entire argument. We do have the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term. This right, that both Con and I agree we the people have, is being subverted by the 22nd amendment of the constitution.

Conclusion:

Thus we see that con’s rebuttals are hollow, in fact his counter plan accepts the premise of my arguments. Now the debate is between…

Amending the Constitution to allow people the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term.”

or,

repeal of the XXII amendment allowing people the the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office if the people so choose.

This choice becomes even easier as con has already conceded that “We do have the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term.” Con concedes that the people have a right to elect a president that has served previously if they so choose.

This debate is between my plan which respects the rights of the people, and con’s plan that at best mitigates that right and at worst subverts it.

The repeal of the XXII amendment would keep experienced candidates in consideration, allow our Democratic Republic to function as intended via elections, and allow Americans to decide for themselves. Therefore, the XXII Amendment should be repealed.

Vote Pro!
Blade-of-Truth

Con

Rebuttals

I. Redundant/limits

Pro argues that we already have natural term limits in the form of elections. What Pro fails to realize is that without term limits, there's no objective standard for when the elections could be held. Do we just wait until a majority wants him/her out?

The reason why this is harmful is because it creates a dynamic where it's the executive branch vs. the people. Under Pro's plan he could do anything in his power to stay in office, as there'd be no obligation for him to leave by law. Under the current system, he has an obligation to leave office regardless of support, and if we truly wish to keep him in power, we can do so via my counter-plan.

Pro then states, "I contend that the people should retain the sovereignty to decide when a politician is not suitable for the office of President through voting." Pro fails to realize that we already have that power with our ability to amend the amendment as well as our impeachment process, should he or she truly deserve another term or need to be removed immediately. Thus, this argument from Pro is defeated.

II. The best person for the job

Pro is essentially arguing that if we keep term limits, we could be losing the most experienced and qualified person for the job. He concludes this by saying, "Before even allowing the American people to consider who the best person for the office may be, the XXII Amendment of the United States Constitution does just that. It removes from consideration those with the most experience. This is clearly foolish."

Again, my counter-plan covers this with the fact that we can amend the amendment to keep the best person for the job in power - if and only if, he or she is truly the best person for the job in the eyes of American citizens. Thus, this argument from Pro also stands defeated.

III. The 22nd Amendment exists for our own Protection

Pro states that, "Several checks exists outside of this amendment that restrict indefinite power." This does nothing to counter my two points that:

1) Term limits ensure that elected public officials cannot remain in power indefinitely.

2) Term limits offer an automatic check on consolidation of power.

Pro has dropped these arguments.

Pro then argues how the amendment was passed in 1951, so it's got nothing to do with our efforts to preserve democracy vs. ending up with the system we fought against. This is horribly inaccurate on Pro's part. It came due to FDR running for a 3rd and 4th term, which broke Pres. Washington's precedent of only serving two terms. Washington’s voluntary decision to decline a third term was seen by many people as a safeguard against the type of tyrannical power yielded by the British crown during the Colonial era. We passed the amendment because of that precedent being broken, we feared of what might happen, and thus created that amendment. So, in truth, our history plays a majority role in this amendment, and with it we can securely know that we'll never have to fear the tyranny that could come with indefinite term limits. It's an insurance plan that protects us, and is one that can be amended at any time, should such action be necessary.

IV. Counter-plan

Pro states, "While amending is not the same as repealing my opponents reasoning in support of amending is an endorsement of my entire argument."

I am, in no way, endorsing the repealing of the 22nd amendment. Pro wants to remove the amendment altogether from our constitution - I am merely presenting a counter-plan in which we amend the amendment should we truly desire for a president to remain for another term.

Pro then concedes that, "We do have the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term." Which is exactly what my counter-plan states. I think Pro believes this amendment hinders that right, but my counter-plan proves that it doesn't.

In conclusion

I have countered each and every point raised by Pro, his arguments and rebuttals stand defeated.

I now return the floor to Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

Thank you Blade for this debate. It has been great!

Final round!

I. Redundant/limits

Con claims “that without term limits, there's no objective standard for when the elections could be held.” This is a ridiculous claim as first… we are talking specifically about the XXII Amendment as well as elections are held independent of the amendment. As mentioned previously in this debate the amendment did not pass until the 1950’s. We had an objective standard then and still do have one for when elections are to be held.

Con claims “he could do anything in his power to stay in office, as there'd be no obligation for him to leave by law.” Again, as with the last claim; This is entirely untrue and entirely off topic for the debate at hand. Prior to the XXII Amendment there was a clear indication and obligation by law for when one is to leave office.

The argument stands that this amendment is redundant and limits the sovereignty of the people.

II. The best person for the job

Con claims “Again, my counter-plan covers this with the fact that we can amend the amendment to keep the best person for the job in power - if and only if, he or she is truly the best person for the job in the eyes of American citizens.”

In part his plan does this, though largely would prevent such an action from taking place. Repealing the amendment would ensure that the best person for the job would not be disqualified based on having experience.

The argument stands that The repeal of the XXII amendment would keep experienced candidates in consideration.

III. The 22nd Amendment exists for our own Protection

Con clings to his two points…

Though, both are mitigated by my plan and his counterplan. The check on power as already shown is redundant.

Con says “We passed the amendment because of that precedent being broken, we feared of what might happen, and thus created that amendment.”

Perhaps, but cons plan as mine would have allowed FDR to have done what he did. So this contention is mitigated as both our plans would allow this supposed “harm.”

IV. Counter-plan

Con argued in this debate that “We have every right to amend the amendment to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term.” My opponent has offered a counter plan to allow us to amend the amendment to allow us overriding its restrictions. If such a plan is truly with merit, surely this shows the redundant and unnecessary nature of the restriction.

In conclusion:

The XXII Amendment is largely redundant. It limits the rights of people to elect who they wish. It removes experience from selection. Con has conceded that these harms are real and has presented a plan to amend the amendment to allow a way around these harms in certain circumstances. Con has argued “We have every right to amend the amendment to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term.”

I go one further. We do have every right to amend, but we also have the right to repeal. Con’s plan allows the harm to remain and only offers a potential way to deal with that harm. My plan to repeal removes the harm.

That is the choice in this debate….

Cons plan that at best mitigates and at worst undermines your right to vote for an experienced President and my plan that respects those rights.

The choice is clear. Vote Pro.

Blade-of-Truth

Con

Thank you Pro.

I. Redundant/limits

Pro originally stated that "we still have natural term limits in the form of elections". My rebuttal was that without term limits there's no objective standard for when elections should be held due to the fact that elections are held at the end of a term limit. Under Pro's plan, there would be no term limits, so there's no real standard for when elections should be held.

Pro closes by saying, "Prior to the XXII Amendment there was a clear indication and obligation by law for when one is to leave office." Pro is wrong, prior to the 22nd amendment there was no obligation by law. That's why we made the amendment in the first place, so clearly Pro is misinformed. George Washington set the informal precedent for a two-term limit for the Presidency—a tradition that prevailed until Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, after which the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1951 formally establishing in law the two-term limit. So without those term limits anymore, are we to just trust that the next president would follow Washington's precedent when we've already had presidents break it like Roosevelt? Pro is literally arguing a point that has already been proved false by history.

Ultimately, Pro has no power to guarantee that future presidents would follow Washington's precedent, and history has already proved his sentiments wrong. Hence, this argument stands unproven by Pro and defeated.

II. Best Person for Job

Pro concedes that my CP makes his argument here null, as evidenced when he stated, "In part, his plan does this..." There is just no rational way to argue that the amendment makes us miss out on the best person for the job, when it's perfectly possible to amend the amendment should a truly great president emerge and desire a 3rd term. As it stands, my CP makes this argument from Pro completely useless. He also fails to explain *how* my CP would prevent an action from taking place. Without actually providing a reason or the *how*, his claim is nothing more than an unexplained opinion.

III. 22nd amendment is for our protection

Pro claims that both his plan and my CP mitigate the two points I made, which were:

1) Term limits ensure that elected public officials cannot remain in power indefinitely.

2) Term limits offer an automatic check on consolidation of power.

This is false. If anything, what my CP does is ensures that we can allow the checks made in the two points while also allowing the voters the freedom to vote for a President a 3rd time if they truly desire to. Pro also, and again, fails to explain *how* it mitigates my two points. Without that critical reasoning, his arguments just fall flat.

Pro additionally concedes that the amendment was indeed passed to protect us from the potential harms of Washington's precedent being broken by FDR. However, he does claim that my counter-plan would allow FDR to do what he did. This is false. When FDR did what he did, there was no amendment in place to check him. If he attempted to do so again nowadays, there would surely be additional scrutiny placed on him due to the, now, existing legal obligation to not have a 3rd term. Pro is merely making assumptions without actually looking at the difference in times and legal obligations.

IV. Counter-plan

Pro claimed, "If such a plan is truly with merit, surely this shows the redundant and unnecessary nature of the restriction." Once more, he fails to explain *how* it shows the redundant and unnecessary nature...

The reality is that my CP allows for the amendment to remain in place, while also assuring the people that we absolutely have the freedom to elect a truly great president for a 3rd term, if necessary, which is the only real argument Pro has going for him. Why remove our insurance policy fully when we can keep it in place and still have the best leader possible? Clearly, my CP is the more reasonable plan to follow.

In closing,

Pro's arguments and rebuttals stand defeated.

Please Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
oh sh!t I am a disorganized fvckhead
Posted by Wilddog 2 years ago
Wilddog
You know, I just realized something. I think I saw on the History channel, the Anti-Christ has a silver tongue. Pro's plan would allow him or her to keep winning all the votes indefinitely. x)

But maybe he's right, and someday we find a Sage-King of a President on our candidate lists. We'd probably want to keep him for a good, long while. x)
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
@spaceking, let's rap battle ;p
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
@Harder: Yeah, I've been the closest. I could have easily noob-sniped my way to 100, but I chose to start taking on harder opponents to test myself. Kasmic has certainly earned my respect and, if anything, I hope that we can have a rematch down the road!
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ohohoho, blade finally got defeated!!
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
Has anyone ever gone undefeated to 100...? I think BoT was the closest ever...
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
@Ragnar:

I don't think that's entirely fair. The link provided is "live", it's just that DDO's formatting rules messed it up. I don't think BoT held it against Pro (see the comments near the beginning, on the second-to-last page, where they talk about it: )kasmic: "shoot, the link got messed up... oh well, its just for the text of the amendment." BoT: "Ehh, I wouldn't worry about that. Anyone can google the amendment and find the relevant text on wikipedia :)") I mean, I know comments are not part of the debate, but still, given that we're talking about an auto-formatting issue, I don't think it's unreasonable for us as voters to "fix the glitch".
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Very good debate, clean, easy to follow, all while being on an important issue.

Yet without a working link to the amendment in question, or far more details on it included in the debate, it seems it'd be pretty difficult to vote meaningfully under the latest standards (not to say impossible).
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Just realized that this hit over 1,000 views. That's cool :)
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
================================================================
>Reported vote: Brenden-Lawrence // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: k

[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb.
===============================================================
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
kasmicBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by daem0n 2 years ago
daem0n
kasmicBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
kasmicBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
kasmicBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.