“Those who concede their power becomes victims the moment they no longer have a voice. “ John Johnson II 08/06/25
By John Johnson II
The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, understood that change was inevitable—even for the Constitution. That’s why they included Article V, which outlines how amendments can be added, revised, or repealed. Its purpose was clear: to ensure that no amendment would become a “sacred cow” immune to challenge or reconsideration. This includes the 22nd Amendment, which limits a President to two terms.
Since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. Scholars suggest among the most impactful are the 1st, 13th, and 14th Amendments, followed closely by the 4th, 5th, and 19th—all addressing vital civil liberties, power limits, or societal change. Yet, the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, remains under fresh scrutiny, both from public debate and inside Congress.
Historically, former Presidents Truman and Reagan opposed the 22nd Amendment. Today, Rep. Andy Ogles has introduced a resolution proposing a third-term option for Presidents—sparking concern and curiosity about political motivations behind such efforts.
The 22nd Amendment was born of fear. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a fourth term (though he passed away before completing it), it broke the two-term precedent established by former President George Washington. Lawmakers feared that a wildly popular leader could become a monarch in all but name.
But democracy isn’t just about protecting against popularity, it’s about preserving voters’ rights.
Some argue that the 22nd Amendment restricts citizens from re-electing the leader they believe is most capable. Others argue that removing term limits opens the door to abuse of power and authoritarian drift.
And that’s the real issue: any effort to amend or repeal the 22nd Amendment must not be driven by partisan gain. The Founders made the process of amending the Constitution deliberately rigorous to safeguard it from political whims. But today, those safeguards appear to be eroding under waves of misinformation, gerrymandering, voter suppression, election interference, and even AI-driven propaganda.
Where do you stand? Will you surrender to distractions, false claims of election fraud, and conspiracy theories? Or will you engage critically and defend the integrity of your democracy?
The 22nd Amendment is not sacred. But it deserves careful, nonpartisan consideration, especially now. Why is this debate resurfacing at this moment in our political history?
For now, efforts to change it seem symbolic—political fodder designed to test public reaction rather than enact real reform.
YOU BE THE JUDGE!
