Selections from the House of Representatives Debate on the Twenty-Second Amendment

Selections from the House of Representatives Debate on the Twenty-Second Amendment

Original Source: Congressional Record, 80th Congress, First Session, Volume 93, Part 1 (Washington, D.C. : United States Government Printing Office, 1947), 842-43, 844, 853-54.

For more on this debate, check out TeachingAmericanHistory.org

Selections from the House of Representatives Debate on the Twenty-Second Amendment February 6, 1947	Notes:
John William McCormack, MA (D)
Mr. McCORMACK . Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important questions that any Member of this body will have to pass upon and I hope each Member will determine the question in accordance with his conscience. It is not my purpose to discuss politics in connection with the proposed amendment to the Constitution, an amendment which will not have any effect upon you and me of this generation but which might have a very important effect upon generations to come after you and I are dead and gone. If this amendment is incorporated in the Constitution, it will make the Constitution rigid. It ties the hands of future generations of Americans and deprives them of the opportunity to meet any problem that might confront them.
Of course, we have lived through the experience ourselves, but I can picture two generations from now, or one or three generations from now, when Americans may be enveloped in a war with their back to the wall. We will not be here. We will have passed on. But we will have imposed this prohibition upon them. They may be with their back to the wall with a President approaching the end of his second term. Let us assume the people of that future generation have complete confidence in their President. I do not know what his party may be. I do not care. That future President will be compelled to terminate his service as President of the United States when he may be the best man qualified to lead the people of our country at that time in meeting the crisis that confronts them.
Chauncey William Reed, IL (R)
Mr. REED  of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the Presidential tenure of office is not a political question. It is a constitutional question of the highest order. In one form or another it occupied the attention of the Constitutional Convention from the introduction of Mr. Randolph’s resolutions on May 29, 1787, until the adoption of the report of the Committee on Style submitted on September 12, five days before final adjournment.
It is hardly necessary to remind Members of Congress that when the matter of the Presidency was considered in the Convention the members of that body repeatedly expressed the importance of placing some limitation upon the tenure of the office. That was particularly so when it was contemplated that the Chief Executive was to be chosen by Congress and that long continuance in office would lead to autocracy, intrigue, or cabal. For a long time, the sentiment prevailed that the President should be limited to a single term of single years. When it became apparent that choice by the legislature would not be adopted, the plan of the Electoral College with a provision for a fixed term of four years was substituted.   Members of the Constitutional Convention feared autocracy. They feared perpetuation in the Executive Office….
This historical feeling and tradition against unlimited tenure in the Presidential office, Mr. Chairman, is not based upon idle fear. The power and prestige of the President of the United States has grown constantly and increasingly since the first inauguration of Mr. Washington. Today, the President of the United States is perhaps the most powerful individual in the world. It is within the spirit of democracy that proper constitutional restraints be placed upon his tenure of office.

Analysis Questions:

• In your own words, summarize the different arguments of the two Representatives.
• Why might it be difficult to replace a president during a national crisis?
• Why might the growth of power exercised by the executive in the modern era make it more dangerous for an individual to serve unlimited terms?