Talk:Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Number of multiple-term presidents
how many presidents served more than one term


 * To answer this question...
 * George Washington
 * Thomas Jefferson
 * James Madison
 * James Monroe
 * Andrew Jackson
 * Abraham Lincoln (he died during his second term)
 * Ulysses Grant
 * Grover Cleveland (not consecutive)
 * William McKinley (he died during his second term)
 * Woodrow Wilson
 * Franklin Roosevelt (the only President to be elected 4 times; died early in his 4th term)
 * Dwight Eisenhower
 * Richard Nixon (he resigned during his second term)
 * Ronald Reagan
 * Bill Clinton
 * George W Bush


 * 66.32.76.46 01:30, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, and Lyndon Johnson as well. Granted, their first terms were begun by another person (and Johnson would have been eligible to run for a third term), they're still considered two-term presidents.  They were just never reelected. RPH 16:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And Calvin Coolidge did as well, going under the same category as T. Roosevelt, Truman, and L. Johnson. --RandomOrca2 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason for amendment
Why was this amendment considered necessary? Was Roosevelt really that bad?
 * I think the main beef was the potential for the presidency to become a de facto monarchy, with people choosing the "ruling" president as long as he wasn't doing things too badly, and/or the president making sure he would be continuously re-voted by doing everything to maintain the status quo (not necessarily good for the country). You can still say "so what?" to that, but US democratic principles are grounded in the rejection of monarchy, so even the hint of it is suspicious. I would like to see more-or-less expert explanations of it (taking contemporary considerations into account as well) of it on the page, though. --JRM 14:13, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)


 * I think it's misleading to justify a law as though it were obviously the right thing to do. There must have been considerable debate on both sides of the 22nd amendment, and it would be valuable to see this discussed. &mdash; 24.223.147.139 00:22, 2005 July 5 (UTC)

From an Article in "Opposing Viewpoints" by Buckley, William F., Jr. I read that 1. "There was, to begin with, the sentiment to continue the tradition of a President's retiring after two terms. 2. Then there was the reaction that followed the news that gradually leaked out about the semi-invalid we had elected for a fourth term. 3. And the Anti-Roosevelt Amendment." The Amendment passed by a republican congress.


 * I still don't see a real explanation anywhere as to why this amendment was carried. There are arguments for and against it in principle, but this article contains no analysis of why congress and the states actually ratified it instead of rejecting it. There ought to be some explanation similar to the one behind the ratification of the Prohibition amendment which banned alcohol, as it's very interesting (whether you agree with an amendment or not) to see why a controversial amendment proves popular.
 * Incidentally, the British political system has no term limits on Prime Ministers at all, but no PM has ever managed to survive more than about 8 to 10 years in government. That, coupled with Roosevelt being the only US President to win more than two elections (and that was under very exceptional circumstances in WWII) makes it seem that there is already a natural two term limit in free and fair democracies, whether it is legislated or not.


 * Sign your comments, please.
 * There are plenty of examples e.g. in the Nordic countries of PMs "reigning" for a long time - and, more importantly, winning more elections! In many countries the maximum term is four years, but elections can be held before that, so a government may have to survive more than two elections in eight years.
 * I don't think there is a "natural" democratic limit to how long an administration can stay popular with the voters. If they are doing a good job, they will be allowed to stay in office. Unfortunately, the opposite doesn't always apply, as recent history shows.
 * Of course it is remarkable that the American voters almost always switch between parties from one president to the next. Maybe if they had more choices than two - and if people actually voted for the president and not for an elector - we would see a more democratic system in America...--dllu 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I had always assumed one reason for the amendment was Roosevelt's growing illness - it must have seemed at the time that the job was literally killing Roosevelt, and that it was unwise in a time of crisis to have a sick President. I assume Buckley's point is that a President who overestimates his own well-being might not know when to throw in the towel. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anyone ever considered changing the term limit to two consecutive terms? This would allow someone to serve two terms, take one or two off and then run again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment
Personally, I have always felt that the 22nd Amendment should be itself re-amended to cover all three branches of government. Limiting the President as written, limiting Congress to 12 years maximum, and limiting the Supreme Court to 15 years. Fair is fair, right? I always found it queer that the president was limited but nobody else. &mdash; 206.156.242.39 13:06, 2005 June 13
 * The problem with doing that to Congress is you lose a heck of a lot of experienced politicians. Congress would be completely full of fresh faces with relatively little track record in legislation. Many of the greatest politicians today have honed their skills after decades of experience in politics. Foreign Policy, for example, is an area that requires lots of experience in order to understand it properly.


 * I've read somewhere that former Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush and Clinton believed a President should serve just one 6 year term. Mightberight/wrong 16:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC).
 * Carter said in a TV interview that he preferred the idea of one 6 year term to two 4 year terms, so that a President would be free to make policy instead of worrying about re-election.
 * But notice that none of them (excepting Clinton) were re-elected. ;) 192.35.35.34 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Was Truman exempted from the 22nd Amendment, which was passed during his presidency? If so, then Truman would have technically been eligible to serve more than 8 years.
 * Yes he was. Dbinder 04:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He was, and as the article says he did indeed try to win a third term but failed to do well enough in the primaries.

Passing
Is it possible to add some information on the numbers that this amendment had when it passed? All the article currently says is "requisite number of states". It need only be 2 sentences, like "30 of 50 states, 67% of the population" should do it; only I don't know the real statistic. A J Hay 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely, I'd love to know more about this. The whole process of this amendment's passing has been glossed over in this article.

George W Bush current term
I removed the last edit by Folksong which added these words: "or if he decides not to carry out the rest of his term or is unable to do so." Seemed clumsy to me, so I merely changed the statement about when Bush's term ends to when his term is due to end. Concise and correct. Darcyj 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

re theoretical presidential succession
I just have a question about a lame duck president who is appointed a cabinet member. If everyone before him (or her) is incapable of performing the duties of the President and he's in line for the presidency, doesn't he still have to qualify for the Presidency with the term limits? Like what if Bill Clinton was appointed Secretary of Defense and everyone before him died in some accident.


 * Assuming Bill Clinton is ineligible for the presidency, the line of succession would skip over him and go on to the Attorney General. Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, and she is not a natural born US citizen.  Had there been some accident which rendered the President, VP, House Speaker, and Pres Pro Tem incapable, the line of succession would have skipped over her in the same fasion 68.110.114.40 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Alex


 * I'm not sure that's correct - reading the text of the 22nd, it states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President ..." It does not state that a previous President who could ascend through some other means would be ineligible - Article Two would seem to be the sole restraint here.  Bill Clinton could, if he chose, run for Congress, be elected, and ascend to Speaker of the House, putting him second in line.  President & VP die or are removed or incapacitated, and boom - Clinton's next in line, and he's not ineligible.  The 22nd would only bar him from being reelected after finishing that term.  At least, that's how I read it - it's a long-shot scenario anyway, so the discussion is largely academic. --142.167.141.183 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The last poster is correct. See the discussion on this at Talk:United States presidential line of succession. JCO312 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, a less long-shot scenario then: when Hillary becomes president, she can't have Bill as her running mate, but if her first choice VP pulls an "Agnew" and has to resign halfway through the term, she can appoint Bill as her new VP? --dllu 20:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See below. Bill Clinton is not ineligible to be elected Vice President, nor to succeed to the Presidency from VP. He just can't be elected to another term as President. Hillary would be perfectly free to choose him as her running mate. Whether she'd want to is up to her. Whether the American people would vote for that ticket is up to them. (And, to be bipartisan, the same would be true of G.W. Bush - he could be John McCain's running mate.) JTRH (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

People currently restricted by amendment
I removed presidents Carter and H.W. Bush from the list of those currently restricted by this amendment, but it was reverted. Rather then simply let it get reverted again (I know people here don't trust IPs....), I figured I'd explain the reasoning.


 * A) Technically any person in the US is restricted by the law to two terms, but only presidents Clinton and W. Bush are specifically unable to run for president because of this amendment.
 * B) Realistically, there's no point to having that particular list unless you are being specific. At present, all it does is state the living former presidents. It does not actually state what the preceding sentence refers to.

I think it should be changed to contain only those who are unable to run for the position of president in a future election (IE: Clinton and W. Bush), but I'll leave it to someone else to change to avoid a big stink. - 71.7.168.237 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Theodore Roosevelt unsuccessfully sought a second term four years after serving a full term after succeeding William McKinley."

I'm pretty sure that Teddy wasn't restricted by the amendment, as he died in 1919... 71.178.240.152 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between the 22nd and 12th amendments
There are no citiations for the opinions presented here. Does any substantial debate actually exist? It seems quite clear that the words of the 12th are on their face perfectly declaratory, and that any rational construction of the text of the 22nd would result in any person not meeting the requirements for Presidential election under same be not eligible for service. Of course, I imagine that the real reason that any such debate might exist is the notion that Hillary Clinton might win the next election, and that there would be popular support for Bill Clinton as VP. Again, it seems perfectly clear that this would be unconstitutional, as it seems also clear that the whole point of the 12th is to ensure that there is no confusion in the succession shoud the President be disabled. 76.116.13.114 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're incorrect. The Constitution only restricts election as President. No one may be elected President more than twice. No one who has served or acted as President for more than two years of someone else's term may be elected President more than once. The Constitution does not restrict such a person from subsequently serving as Vice President, or from succeeding (returning) to the Presidency after the incumbent's death, resignation or removal by impeachment. He just couldn't run for another term as President on his own. You don't have to be eligible to be elected President to be eligible to serve as President or Vice President - you just have to meet the Constitutional requirements: be a natural-born citizen, a U.S. resident for 14 years, and at least 35 years of age. JTRH (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph about the interaction between the 12th and 22nd was deleted without explanation, and has just been restored. I agree that the statements were factually inaccurate (see my comments immediately above), but there should be an explanation or discussion before a fairly substantial part of the article just gets cut out. JTRH (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. The paragraph in question still needs to be reliably sourced, and it's unlikely that it will be since there's no actual debate among Constitutional scholars about the provisions of the 22nd. JTRH (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?
Necessary or not? It seems like it just has a few examples and nothing worthwhile. NuclearWarfare (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Successions
What if someone succeeds the President or acts as the President more than once? If each time is less than 2 years, then is he still eligible to be elected to the Presidency twice? It says, "...or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President..." Should it have said "a term or terms"? Constitutionalist4 (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Heredity, Monarchs, and Rights of Succession
If the idea behind term limits seeks to avoid the appearance of a "president for life", the 22nd Amendment does not address the creation of dynastic attempts to create a house to rival Windsor, the Kennedys, say. Or a sitting president positioning blood relatives such as a son from taking over, whilst continuing to influence the making of policy. The Bushes come to mind. The Clintons, though, are really pushing it with a husband/wife relationship, conflated into one entity in "Holy Matrimony" (and if you disagree, see what the IRS, or Court rules have to say about what does not make for arms-length.) Of course, one can argue the case as a virtue, depending upon one's politics. 76.173.2.87 (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your pointless diatribe -- do you feel better now? 76.233.78.160 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland
The main article should have some mention of Grover Cleveland and his non-consecutive two terms. It's relevant in the discussion. 69.238.185.113 (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it relevant?., he was president before the admendment was pased Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's relevant in that it sets a prescedent for future one term presidents. The 22nd Amendment only says that a person may serve no more than two terms, it doesn't say they have to be consecutive. Cleveland lost to Harrison in the election of 1888 and then defeated him in the election of 1892 to become president again. Washington had set a prescedent of serving only two terms, something that most presidents after him followed. Before FDR, only Grant and Teddy Roosevelt tried to be elected for a third time. So we have Cleveland setting a prescendent here that would still be possible under this amendment. --annonymous 11/04/2010 4:11 AM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.4.143 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What precedent are you talking about? I don't understand the argument that you're trying to make. JTRH (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically, Ford Was Never Elected
He assumed the office of the vice president by replacing Agnew, so the term should be served, rather than elected. --161.7.97.165 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence described what would have happened in 1980 if Ford had won in 1976, i.e., he had been elected once. JTRH (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

22nd vs. 14th
Is there a tension between the 22nd Amendment term limiting the Presidency, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? The 14th ensures the application of law to all citizens equally, but as of this writing, the 22nd only applies to only four citizens, five after the next election. 65.6.56.54 (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment reads that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The 22nd Amendment applies equally to living and future presidents from all states, and its term limitation affects (and protects?) citizens from all states. &mdash;ADavidB 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And the 22nd was enacted after the 14th, so presumably any conflict would go to the side of the 22nd. (Since that's clearly the case with 21st which repealed the 18th completely).  76.233.78.160 (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no tension whatsoever. The 22nd Amendment applies equally to everyone in the country. It says that no one may be elected more than twice, not that "Bill Clinton and George W. Bush can't be President again." Those two are the only two living people who are currently disqualified, but that doesn't mean they're somehow being treated differently. Anyone else who got elected twice would be subject to the same restriction. JTRH (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

History comment
Alexander Hamilton argues against presidential term limits specifically in [federalist paper #72].

TyrellCorp (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Hamilton initially argued for the President being appointed for life on condition of good behavior. His theory, that the term-limited president would seek to usurp the Constitution to maintain office, has not been borne out by history. bd2412  T 08:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "seek to usurp the Constitution to maintain office, has not been borne out by history". Yes thankfully no President has ever illegally spied on their political opponents, or say had people break into offices of the opposing party.  (Although probably no where near as bad as Hamilton was envisioning). 76.233.78.160 (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoover Commission?
Can someone document what role, if any, the Hoover Commission played in enacting this amendment? The article currently reads as though the amendment were the product of the Hoover Commission, which can't be true given that Congress passed the amendment roughly 3 1/2 months before creating the commission. 74.167.152.33 (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

George Washington set the precident that only two terms would be served —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.161.239 (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No bar to serving, only to being elected
This articles presently (3:30am EST Sun 5th Feb 2012) states: QUOTE: Since the Amendment's ratification, the only other President who could have served more than eight years was UNQUOTE That's wrong, and inconsistent with the paragraph (as of 3:30am EST Sun 5th Feb 2012) immediately preceding this article's heading "Affected individuals". Nobody is barred from serving more than eight years. One can still serve as President for one's entire life, as long as sufficient voters and electors agree. This Amendment bars nobody from SERVING. It bars some persons from being ELECTED. As long as one attains the Presidency other than by being elected, one may serve for life. One may win elections to the Vice Presidency every four years, and then take the Presidency each time on the resignation of the President-Elect. The Twelfth Amendment has no effect here. It merely states that if a person can't SERVE as President they can't SERVE AS Vice President. It doesn't state that if a person can't be ELECTED President then they can't become Vice President either. Since the 22nd Amendment doesn't disqualify anyone from SERVING as President, the 12th Amendment doesn't disqualify them from SERVING as Vice President, and ascending to the Presidency by resignation of the ticket's top half, every four years until they die.76.8.67.2 (talk)Christopher L. Simpson —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Former presidents as future VPs
Is there a source, anywhere, other than the cited National Review article which argues that a two-term president is not subsequently eligible to become Vice President or to then succeed to someone else's unexpired presidential term? The NR article was written specifically in opposition to Bill Clinton, not as an objective analysis of the situation. The Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit it, therefore there is no bar to Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush, or any other two-term president, being elected vice president and later succeeding to the presidency for the remainder of an unexpired term. It says no one may be "elected" President more than twice. One partisan article arguing, inaccurately, to the contrary does not make the answer "unclear." I removed this manufactured "controversy" from this article long ago (the discussion on the talk page at the time is long since archived), and it was apparently reinserted while I wasn't paying close enough attention to the article. I'm not going to remove it again without discussion, but the article as written is inaccurate (no, it is not "unclear"), and this needs to be discussed. JTRH (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly that is the "loophole" in the Amendment which only states that a person can only be "elected" twice and that someome who served as President for more than 2 years after succeding a President may only be "elected" once, however it says nothing about serving as President thereafter, so in theory someone could be "elected" twice, then become Vice President later on and if he happens to succede the President then he can serve the remainder of that term but can't be elected at the end of it. Maybe we should also take out the word "Term Limit" because the Amendment says nothing about "term limits" only that a person is limited to 2 "elections" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion
H.J.Res. 15&rarr;Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

I don't see anything about H.J. Res 15 that differentiates it from other attempts over the past twenty years to repeal the 22nd Amendment. With the shortness of the article, I think it would be better off discussed in the context of these other attempts. Sceptre (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally think that the coverage for anything differentiates attempts from previous. I do understand that there have been attempts before but if there is non trivial coverage it will merit it's own article. That being said if it's consensus to merge I will defintely abide by that but I do believe coverage on it is sufficient. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's a cycle that happens: Serrano introduces repeal bill, Fox News complain "Democratic tyranny!", Daily Kos say "he's done this for twenty years", coverage dies down. I remember similar, minimal coverage back in 2011. Sceptre (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When looking at this [] search there is substantial coverage for just this one attempt. To me that would be non trivial coverage and definitely not routine. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Attempts at repeal
Given that both republican and democratic members of Congress have introduced bills to repeal the 22nd amendment, why does the article only list the names of the democrats? 205.254.147.8 (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If correct, this is likely because no one has listed any Republican bill sponsors (along with reliable sources). I don't see that any others were added. —ADavidB 04:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

History section is painfully incomplete
It's currently all about the tradition of two terms as an informal limit, and includes nothing about the circumstances and motivation for proposing the 22nd Amendment. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I came to make this exact remark, after hitting the article to see if I could find out who authored the amendment.DoctorCaligari (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph on the amendment's approval by the 80th Congress, signature by the Speaker of the House, adoption four years later after ratification, and Truman's decision not to seek another term. —ADavidB 13:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The History section of this article has new information I saw today: Wilson himself interested in another term in 1920!? He had become ill (the extent of his illness wasn't fully public then?), and we see the stuff about his (2nd) wife, Edith, informally helping out in his office. There is a photo from 1920 where President Wilson is signing some papers, which had to be held steady by Edith because the President was paralyzed on left side (such paralysis wasn't public then). Also, elsewhere on Wikipedia there is item about T. Roosevelt being considered for 1920 Republican presidential nomination (his 1919 death then nixed this, and the Republicans in 1920 got Warren Harding and the "return to normalcy" campaign). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Vice president eligibility
"A very popular president runs as the vice president during an election, but everyone knows they are really voting for him. After the election, the president resigns." This popular vice president who becomes president again would have the support of the people, in order to win votes, and maybe also the support of US Congress, but it would reasonably count as being reelected again. In fact, there are situations like the current president of Turkey that are very similar to this. (In his case, he couldn't become prime minister again.) 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it would not "reasonably count as being reelected again." He wasn't elected to a third term as president, he was elected vice president. 67.197.243.87 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Does the US constitution really need a "you can't run for the office of US President if you intend to immediately resign" clause? "The separate ballots for president and vice president became something of a moot issue later in the 19th century when it became the norm for popular elections to determine a state's Electoral College delegation. Electors chosen this way are pledged to vote for a particular presidential and vice presidential candidate (offered by the same political party)." Electors may be voting for the future president as just the vice-president in this situation, but general voters (who elect the electors) only have one vote, in which they simultaneously select both a president and vice-president. 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your question was answered in 1804. The last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment, ratified that year, states: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."  Therefore, in your scenario, the very popular President who had served two terms could not be elected Vice President. JamesMLane t c 22:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Constitution does not prevent a two-term former President from doing anything other than being elected to a third term as President. There is no restriction (and no credible source in support of such a restriction) on someone who was elected President twice subsequently being elected Vice President, and on succeeding to the Presidency as VP. That person just can't be elected a third time. 67.197.243.87 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I quoted the sentence that prevents such a person from being elected VP.  Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all ineligible to serve another term as President and are therefore ineligible for the office of Vice President.  I don't see any other way to read that sentence. JamesMLane t c 03:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with JamesMLane. That is the obvious reading of the Constitution. I know I've heard Bill Clinton point this out (if anyone wants that as a reliable source I'll go find it). Ratemonth (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the 22nd amendment to the US constitution had existed in 1804 (when the 12th was made), then the eligibility referenced it could reasonably be assumed to apply to the limits on being elected. But the US constitution had other restrictions in 1804. The designated line of succession if presidents or acting presidents are killed or incapacitated is somewhat long; is a former president not allowed to occupy any of those positions? Or would they just be 'passed up' if the previous 3+ people were killed? Or is the suggestion that they could only become "acting president", and not actually hold the office of president if that happened? 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The questions presented in this thread are the subject of heated debate in legal scholarship. Most recently, Dan Coenen discussed this issue in a recent article in the Boston College Law Review. If you are interested in learning more, I recommend reading this article from the Minnesota Law Review, this article from the Indiana Law Review, this book by acclaimed constitutional law scholar Akhil Reed Amar, and this report prepared for the Congressional Research Service. Needless to say, prominent scholars disagree about the answer. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a good point. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then Wikipedia should either avoid the controversy entirely or describe the disagreement between these legal scholars. I think the current text of the articles makes clear there is a disagreement, so I think it's okay to let it stay as is. Ratemonth (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Exact duration ever been laid down?
The wording of the amendment says "no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." Taken literally that would mean that anybody who at the day of election (2nd tuesday in November, right?) is still one day away from fulfilling the two year rule would be fine, making it in effect 26 1/2 months of the actual term, would still be elegible for two elections as president proper. But the "spirit" of the law would probably be 2 years in total or exactly 24 months. Is there already a legal precedent known for this? Johnson's term as acting president was only roughly one year and Ford lost his bid for the one term he'd be allowed so he didn't come to the termlimit in any way. Still f there IS a source for how long it is allowed to be, it would be a wonderful addition to the article as this seems like a point that will end up in court sooner or later as soon as the constellation would theoretically allow such a reading. 178.203.29.150 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's two years in office, not two years starting with the election. There's no ambiguity as to the day someone takes office as President. 67.197.243.87 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Truman Eligibility
I don't have any sort of background in Constitutional Law (or any law for that matter), but it seems to me that whether or not Truman had won another consecutive term, he would have been eligible to run in any number of subsequent presidential elections. The amendment makes no distinction that the currently sitting president needs to remain president to continue being grandfathered in.
 * Yes 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * True and corrected. Str1977 (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Delay?
The article says, "delay in ratification of the Twentieth Amendment meant that Roosevelt's first inauguration took place on March 4, 1933..." What delay was this? The Twentieth article refers to a "delay" also, but it seems to me the amendment was ratified and implemented on a normal schedule. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323115737/http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/20/lafantasie_civil_war_consensus/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/20/lafantasie_civil_war_consensus/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not understanding why I am being corrected.
In the article, there is a discussion about Ulysses Grant and the 22nd amendment. There is a sentence I don’t agree is structured correctly. I am not a English major so I will take criticism if I am wrong. Instead of correcting over and over and risk being banned for something I disagree with, I want to bring it here for discussion to help me understand why I am wrong or correct the mistake once and for all.

The sentence is this:

“Following Ulysses S. Grant's reelection victory in 1872, there were serious discussions within Republican political circles about the possibility of his running again in 1876.”

I believe it should read like this:

“Following Ulysses S. Grant's reelection victory in 1872, there were serious discussions within Republican political circles about the possibility of him running again in 1876.”

Basically I believe that “him” should replace “his.”

Thank you. Ghost17570 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The grammar rule in question involves pronouns in front of gerunds, wherein a possessive pronoun is to be used. This external source seems to cover the subject well. —ADavidB 00:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It is sadly an English rule that is broken too often. I am afraid I may not be the first or last to believe that the sentence in question is wrong. Ghost17570 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)