OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #41
Yet most of us understand the intent of the 22nd amendment is much different than it's literal meaning.
Based on what evidence? The only evidence presented in this thread so far is the words of the 22nd amendment. Should we presume without evidence the writers of this amendment intended something different than what they wrote?
And even if they did - what does it matter? The amendment was ratified based on the meaning of what it says - not based on its intent. Intent is only relevant when their is ambiguity in the literal meaning of the law. There is no ambiguity here - the 22nd is quite clear that the restriction is only elections - not total time served.
My comment was based on the historical nature of the Amendment, clearly focused on FDR's four elections, the majority in Congress and in 3/4 of the State Legislatures limited the office to twice being elected. You are correct, the literally meaning is "elected" not serving. My inference is the intent was for someone to hold the office for a period no longer than five years, 11 months and one day less then a full 12 months. Of course my inference is only that, not a clear or convincing argument in the law.
Well then they failed miserably because several Presidents since have served longer than "five years, 11 months and one day less then a full 12 months" ! The most recent to do so is President Bush, and Obama will exceed that provided he serves out at least half of his 2nd term.
Last edited: