Presidential Term Limits: An Imbalance of Power

On March 21, 1947, Congress passed the Twenty-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that limits any person from serving as President of the United States for more than two terms. The amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states February 27, 1951, and became operative. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's unprecedented third and fourth terms as president motivated passage of the presidential term limit out of concern over the possibility of one person becoming entrenched in the office of chief executive which was generally held to be a threat against liberty. Generally historians agree that the decision for why two terms was chosen as the limit was based on the historical precedent set by President George Washington who voluntarily left office after serving two terms and that the Twenty-Second Amendment merely formalized the practice.

Since passage of the presidential term limit amendment, there have been at times movements that sought to repeal the amendment but it has withstood those challenges and remained in effect. Since the presidency is an elective office it could be easily argued that there was no need for the Twenty-Second Amendment. Why shouldn't a person be able to serve again and again as long as they received the necessary votes to attain re-election? But debating the need for and utility of this change to the Constitution is not our focus. Rather the focus is on what was perhaps one unintended consequence of the term limit.

Most learn in seventh grade civics that the Constitution provides a system of checks and balances by its design. The federal government is composed of three independent branches: executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. In theory each branch holds separate but equal powers which prevent any single branch from exercising an inordinate amount of influence over the operation of the central government. In other words a balance of power was created.

Upon leaving office, President George Washington, published a "Farewell Address" in which he admonished the country to safeguard the liberties that had been so dearly won. While acknowledging the right of the people to alter the Constitution He solemnly warned that doing so was not a matter to be taken lightly as imprudent alterations held the potential for weakening the document to the point that it would no longer be able to safeguard the freedoms it was deigned to protect. A careful reading of his treatise seems to make clear that one of the things he was most acutely aware of was a natural tendency would exist within the government for one branch attempting to gain an advantage over another by appropriating greater power and authority, altering the delicate balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Perhaps to some degree this occurred when Congress enacted a term limit for the office of President yet did not see fit to enact similar limits on the legislative branch.

A cursory examination of President Obama's attempts to secure national health care reform demonstrates quite clearly how the federal government operates. While only Congress can enact law, clearly the president has a great deal of influence in the process. Very simply there is a compromise system in place where presidents lend support to measures initiated by Congress in return for the Congress giving support to certain presidential initiatives. Newly elected presidents take office with a personal agenda for what they see as needed change. They present their objectives and then work towards gaining Congressional support for them so that eventually the objectives are transformed into reality through the enactment of law necessary to make them policy. A brief review would seem to indicate that presidents are most effective in gaining passage of important policy during their initial term in office. At the same time, it is quite difficult to find a single example of an important presidential initiative that gained passage during a second presidential term. Even at the moment of re-election to a second term, a president effectively becomes what is politically termed a "lame duck" due to the presidential term limit. Common sense illustrates that presidential power to promote initiatives is at its zenith in a first term because of the specter of possible re-election when the same president might still be in the position of signing or vetoing legislation passed by the Congress. This consideration however is removed upon the expiration of a president's first term. It is simple human nature that the collective Congressional will to cooperate with a lame duck president is lessened since in the relatively short span of four years time, the president will be removed from office. This seems to make the argument that the presidential term limit does in fact materially alter the balance of power between the executive and legislative branch.

It seems readily apparent that if the Twenty-Second Amendment remains in force, restoration of the balance of power intended by the framers of the Constitution requires that corresponding term limits should then be imposed on Congress.

Sources:

"Amendment XXII". The National Archives. July 15, 2009.

Peabody, Bruce G. "George Washington, Presidential Term Limits, and the Problem of Reluctant Political Leadership". Presidential Studies Quarterly. July 15, 2209.

Washington, George. "Farewell Address". Early America.com. July 15, 2009.