AHC Have Republicans successfully repeal the 22nd Amendment

[Gnomepilled]

Ever since 1968 one of the major goals of the Republican Party has been to repeal the 22nd Amendment. While it isn't the most pressing goal it is still up there. Republicans often cry that it's undemocratic or unfair while the Democrats argue that without it a Democrat would never win again. Basically the Republican version of abolishing the Electodal College.

With a challenge from 1968 to 2012 have the GOP successfully repeal the amendment.

P.S the reason why I set the time limit is because every from the period is politically dead or retired. No one cares about John Edwards for example. Please keep this out of chat pls.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Repeal of the 22nd Amendment isn't a Republican issue, it's an issue that appeals to whichever party has the presidency. Clinton and Obama had just as many proposals to repeal the 22nd as Reagan and Bush.

 

[MrHappy]

Ever since 1968 one of the major goals of the Republican Party has been to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

I have never heard that before in 30+ years of following politics. Granted, a few overly enthusiastic Reagan and Clinton fanboys suggested this from time to time. The 22nd Amendment was a Republican creation that was initially opposed by a sizeable segment of the Democratic Party, including Harry Truman.

Can you cite a few examples of this proposition being seriously advocated?

 

[JVM]

Having Dwight Eisenhower offer to stand for a third term well in advance of the 1960 election, and I think you would see it removed in that situation. He had strong support by the electorate and bipartisan popularity, and Franklin Roosevelt was in living memory still, so I think it would have felt less "settled" compared to decades later. I doubt Eisenhower would have pushed for this, but if his heir apparent was a staunch isolationist or Joe McCarthy, he may have reconsidered.

 

[MrHappy]

Having Dwight Eisenhower offer to stand for a third term well in advance of the 1960 election, and I think you would see it removed in that situation. He had strong support by the electorate and bipartisan popularity, and Franklin Roosevelt was in living memory still, so I think it would have felt less "settled" compared to decades later. I doubt Eisenhower would have pushed for this, but if his heir apparent was a staunch isolationist or Joe McCarthy, he may have reconsidered.

FYI-- Eisenhower wasn't too pleased that his heir apparent was Nixon, but Ike was unwilling to cause a party rift.

 

[Gnomepilled]

FYI-- Eisenhower wasn't too pleased that his heir apparent was Nixon, but Ike was unwilling to cause a party rift.

Honestly I have seen plenty of things that contradict this.

 

[MrHappy]

Honestly I have seen plenty of things that contradict this.

"Ike and Dick: A Portrait of a Strange Marriage."

 

[JVM]

FYI-- Eisenhower wasn't too pleased that his heir apparent was Nixon, but Ike was unwilling to cause a party rift.

Yeah, I considered mentioning this - I think it's super interesting, but I hadn't known the source until your subsequent post.

 

[PlanetaryIceTea]

Granted, a few overly enthusiastic Reagan and Clinton fanboys suggested this from time to time.

This might be a slightly hot take, but I'm reasonably certain that if Reagan could have run for a 3rd term and chosen to do that, he'd have lost. He just was not fully there mentally in 1988, according to many, many reports, and that would surely show on the campaign trail. People in 1984 gave him a headache about his age before that one debate response, and given he'd be 81 by the end of a 3rd term and the early Alzheimers showing we could end up with a disaster class Reagan campaign where his mental ability to serve becomes the main subject and he keeps making it harder and harder to downplay as he goes.

 

[DougM]

I would argue that whatever of mental problems Reagan had wud be washed under the table or be ignored. Please don’t ask me to provide evidence for that view as I can’t as it would violate the bane on recent politics

But either way you are not getting a repeal of the 22nd amendment as you are not getting enough states to ratify it.

 

[Nivek]

Why simple not 22nd amedment to begin with?

 

[Gnomepilled]

Why simple not 22nd amedment to begin with?

Because the Republicans campaigned heavily for it. They also knew that Truman was unpopular.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

The 22nd Amendment was basically a knee-jerk reaction to FDR but it did codify the 2 term tradition. I don't recall that repeal of the Amendment was ever a part of basic Republican policies and in fact it would be counter to the concepts of term limits and even limited government. Interestingly the only presidents who realistically could have taken advantage of a repeal were probably Clinton and Obama because they did not face the obstacles of age and health that Ike and Reagan faced by the end of their second terms.

 

[Gnomepilled]

The 22nd Amendment was basically a knee-jerk reaction to FDR but it did codify the 2 term tradition. I don't recall that repeal of the Amendment was ever a part of basic Republican policies and in fact it would be counter to the concepts of term limits and even limited government. Interestingly the only presidents who realistically could have taken advantage of a repeal were probably Clinton and Obama because they did not face the obstacles of age and health that Ike and Reagan faced by the end of their second terms.

Every Republican candidate since Nixon have supported repealing it. They just never do it.

 

[DougM]

Probably because thr President cant repeal it? You need Congress to pass a new amendment and then you need enough states to ratify said amendment.
And you are not getting THAT many states to agree to ratify a new amendment repealing the 22nd amendment. You are not getting 38 states and 2/3 of both halves of Congress to agree to this.

 

[brunohusker]

I don't know if anyone has worked to repeal it. If anything the Republicans wanted to keep it for a long time as it was done after FDR was elected four times. Not to mention you still had some Democrats who while they liked FDR, they still wanted to adhere to such a tradition and so the 22nd amendment was decently popular.

 

[Lalli]

Every Republican candidate since Nixon have supported repealing it. They just never do it.

Really? Perhaps Reagan but I haven't heard that any president would had called repealing 22nd Amendment. Not even that previous one whose name we don't say. And even if president would really want to do that, he couldn't push that unless get enough support from Congress and support of 2/3 states.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Really? Perhaps Reagan but I haven't heard that any president would had called repealing 22nd Amendment. Not even that previous one whose name we don't say. And even if president would really want to do that, he couldn't push that unless get enough support from Congress and support of 2/3 states.

At least four US Presidents have been critical of the 22nd Amendment: Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. You'll note that's a 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans. In Congress, José E. Serrano - a Democratic Representative from New York - proposed repeal of the 22nd Amendment no fewer than nine times.

There are a number of amendments that the Republicans seem to have a particular problem with. The ones I've heard them particularly arguing to repeal are the 16th and 17th. More usually, they seem to prefer proposing new amendments - admittedly, that isn't unique to Republicans.

 

[Gnomepilled]

At least four US Presidents have been critical of the 22nd Amendment: Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. You'll note that's a 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans. In Congress, José E. Serrano - a Democratic Representative from New York - proposed repeal of the 22nd Amendment no fewer than nine times.

There are a number of amendments that the Republicans seem to have a particular problem with. The ones I've heard them particularly arguing to repeal are the 16th and 17th. More usually, they seem to prefer proposing new amendments - admittedly, that isn't unique to Republicans.

Most people worship a bygone Era. They also generally ignore the policies of that Era. When that society fails they say they never liked that society anyways.
To Republicans this Era is the 1870s to early 1900s and the 50s. To Democrats it's the FDR Era.
Republicans ignore the high union membership and taxes.
Democrats ignore segregation, Marijuana ban, sexism, the fact that New Deal policies worsened the depression etc.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

There are a number of amendments that the Republicans seem to have a particular problem with. The ones I've heard them particularly arguing to repeal are the 16th and 17th. More usually, they seem to prefer proposing new amendments - admittedly, that isn't unique to Republicans.

The pedant in me is compelled to point out that a new amendment is how old amendments get repealed...

the fact that New Deal policies worsened the depression etc.

They don't ignore it. They rightfully point out it's a giant myth that originated in libertarian circles, popularized by a partisan journalist with no schooling in economics or history, who relied on cherry-picked statistics, and which is propped up by Republicans and Republican-aligned continue to peddle because they have to re-write the history of the New Deal or all their laissez-faire bloviating falls flat. Actual historians call it "New Deal denialism" for a reason...

If you want to talk about the New Deal's genuine flaws - like the NRA or the ways the program subtly reinforced segregation - you can do so without repeating nonsense propaganda that serves modern political agendas more than it does actual history