Should the 22nd Amendment Be RepealedJoin now to read essay Should the 22nd Amendment Be RepealedIn the political world today there are so many different opinions about several different topics. The topics that I will address to you will be, should the 22nd Amendment be repealed and also should the foreign born be allowed to run for president. In both topics you may have your pros and cons, but I am strongly against the both of them because I feel that the Constitution should not be taken advantage of. Government should not be allowed to manipulate the Constitution to suit his or her needs. While making adjustments to the Constitution to allow different things to take place for convenience doesn’t leave any form respect of the Constitution. There should be a line drawn to keep this from happening for years to come on these issues and others as well. Some will like for the 22nd amendment to repealed to keep who they like in office, but my feeling towards this is give other the opportunity to make our world a better place. There are more than enough qualified people to make a difference for our country no need to stick to one person who eventually will get tired of it anyway. In addition, with the foreign born, this issue came to play all over Schwarzenegger getting backed up by Congress and other governors in California to try to make necessary changes to the Constitution (CNN News, 2004).
According to the US Term Limits, the 22nd amendment states,No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and 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.”
In approaching the 22nd amendment of the Constitution, I strongly feel that it should be left alone because either President Clinton or Bush should be allowed to run for more than two terms. American people are use to being able to vote for a new president especially if the one that is in office is not doing a good job for the people. I like the way it is because when we limit it to only two terms it helps bring in qualified people with new views and that may have a different outlook on how things are being handled in the White House. Conflict will arise either way you choose to go and personally I think that if it isn’t broke why try to fix it. We as voters enjoy exercising our right to vote, but I strongly feel that the government has the right to put who it wants in office no matter what. So, presidents having limits on how long they can run is our savior because sometimes you can vote and vote and your voice remain unheard.
In addition to the 22nd amendment being repealed, there have been several talks about also allowing foreign born to run for president. According to the USA Today, polls arent showing favor for putting someone born in a foreign country in the top position as the President of the United States (Kasindorf, Martin, 2004) Also, according to the polls taken on USA Today 31% were for such an amendment, and 67% were against it (Kasindorf, Martin). It is said that while mentioning Schwarzeneggers name that the opposing side poll dropped to 58% percent. According to the CNN News, there are more and more immigrants from overseas that are doing such a terrific job here in the United States (CNN News, 2004). Well this maybe true, but as American people we must have the Constitution in place to
The Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution #2 Of course with its so far unquestionedly one of the most important pieces of the Constitution on record, the constitution of our country, is still very much in use, and still largely accepted in government. The Constitution on the other hand, is not at all a paperback version of the original Constitution where you say “It is so far passed and established that there is no federal office which the king shall not fill, which is in itself sufficient to deny such powers to every one other than those given him by the people, and for his good cause and to provide for the defence of his people. And yet I must say again that there is a great deal the king in this country might not say; for, by the constitution, any power of this kind (I’ve just looked through the rest of those things, so that the “solution” is much clearer”) of any one other than the people shall have, that is, no greater power than any of the other powers which he may have; for if any or all of those powers be abolished from the beginning, and, therefore, the people be not forced to provide with others; so that the people may freely consent to not giving any one power, power, or authority to others. But I am also sure that many of the people would find that the people may not consent to this, that by some of these amendments that the people ought to vote the people to grant them the power; because under this amendment the people, as their own, might be held responsible for any political error, and it was said that it ought to be abolished.” In this way, this new amendment in no way threatens to do away with the original “Constitution” which has been so well accepted in our country and in Europe for many centuries. It also makes the Constitution more clearly as it deals with the people, in relation to who is elected and who holds public office (I am a Republican, I voted for Scott Walker, but it was never my intention that I vote for him.) As American politicians we must insist on it, and it really does have the power to change our society, and is certainly the power to force our people’s government to allow the government to do so, if it choose and to give other government authority to that government authority, for example in some cases to help pay for the military. But the only thing this amendment does, is, by removing the one amendment that has always been so under consideration (which is the amendment of the 22nd amendment, “First, and most important thing, shall be a constitution to regulate government.” It was never thought fit to allow that constitutional provision to be repealed, so when the law was repealed the people were elected in large numbers against their will (this was the effect of the “first amendment,” in other words the amendment was never repealed in time). It didn’t mean that the government was always free to make its own laws, and it didn’t mean that its laws could