Let’s set the record straight. President Barack Obama is NOT trying to take over our country as dictator by repealing the 22nd Amendment.
Yes, this proposal for repeal has recently been brought to the table of Congress, just as it has many times over the past several decades. More specifically, proposals for repeal of this amendment has been brought to the table 23 times over the past 20 years for presidents of each party, by congressional members of both parties.
Did you know that President Franklin D. Roosevelt served four terms as our President? Between the years of 1932 and 1944 President FDR was elected four times, and his tenure ended only because he died shortly after his fourth term started. After his death, Congress passed the bill to establish the 22nd Amendment limiting the presidency to two terms.
President George Washington started the two term precedent when he voluntarily stepped down after his second term, and presidents thereafter followed suit until President Roosevelt was voted into office four times.
Congressional Representative Jose E. Serrano has brought the topic of repealing the 22nd Amendment to the table every two years since 1997 (a total of 9 times), with this being the third time he has brought it up for President Obama.
During President Clinton’s term, the repeal was presented six times by four different members of Congress.
During President George H.W. Bush’s term, the repeal was presented twice by two different Congressional Representatives.
It is important to know that although these people did put the repeal on the “table,” it never made it further than that and was never even voted on by Congress.
The thing is, social media is blowing this out of proportion by saying that President Obama wants to become “President for Life” with a dictatorship put into place so he can "rule" over the United States.
The truth is that if this repeal ever did go through, which is extremely unlikely because both sides of Congress would have vote in favor of the repeal, Obama would still have to be elected every four years. The repeal would not take the four year term off the table, but would allow the president to run for office beyond the two terms currently in law.
Did you know that Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York has served beyond his initial two terms for that great city? Is he being accused of dictatorship in the city of New York? No. The voters changed the law because his great business sense and leadership proved that having the opportunity to serve beyond two terms can be beneficial. “According to current law, the mayor is limited to three consecutive four-year terms in office, which was previously limited to two terms. It was changed from two to three terms on October 23, 2008, when the New York City Council voted 29–22 in favor of passing the term limit extension into law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_New_York_City).”
I grew up in southern California and knew only one mayor throughout my entire childhood. Mayor Tom Bradley was elected for five consecutive terms. "Thomas "Tom" Bradley (December 29, 1917 – September 29, 1998) was the five-term Mayor of Los Angeles, California, serving in office from 1973 to 1993. The son of sharecroppers and grandson of slaves, he made history when he was elected Mayor of Los Angeles and became the first African American mayor of a major American city without a black majority (http://www.mayortombradley.com/biography)."
Am I saying that this should be the same for the Presidency? Not necessarily; but, perhaps if a president had more than two terms to undo any "mess" that had been set into motion before he, or she, came into office, maybe they could make a bigger difference for the betterment of our country and for the economy. I believe this could have been true for other presidents in the history of the United States of America too.