Twenty-Second Amendment,

The role of the President of the United States has evolved over time and has been shaped by various restrictions on the length of their term in office and the limits placed on their constitutional powers. This evolution is reflected in the passage of the Twenty-Second Amendment, which limits the President to two terms in office. 

This amendment demonstrates a shift in the understanding of the role and responsibilities of the President, and highlights the desire to ensure that the President does not hold too much power for too long. These term-of-office and constitutional-power restrictions illustrate how the role of the President has changed and continues to change over time in response to the needs and concerns of the American people and the country as a whole. 

The Framers of the Constitution deliberated extensively on the president's selection, partly due to the newness of the role. Under the Articles of Confederation, no such position existed, with Congress holding both legislative and executive authority. The British monarchy was a clear yet concerning model, considering the recent revolution against British rule. Among the key issues the Framers examined were presidential term limits, whether the presidency should be a singular role or a collective body, the method of election (by Congress, the populace, or an intermediary like the Electoral College), and the overall function of the presidency. Interestingly, many Framers, including Hamilton and Madison, initially favored a lifetime presidency appointed by Congress rather than elected by the public. This approach would have led to what George Mason of Virginia described as an “elective monarchy.” However, this idea was ultimately rejected in a close vote of six to four. If lifetime presidencies were off the table, the need for fixed terms arose. The question then became whether re-election would be allowed or if presidents would face term limits. Most Framers opposed term limits, preferring a system where Congress appointed a President who could seek re-election. Gouverneur Morris cautioned that this could lead to corrupt agreements between presidential candidates and Congress for re-election. The solution that emerged moved away from congressional appointments, establishing Article II's complex method for electing a President without term limits. George Washington's choice to step down after two terms established a precedent that endured for 150 years, even as the nation industrialized and the federal government expanded. Although term-limit amendments were suggested annually, none were passed, as the existing convention seemed effective. A convention allows for necessary deviations from rules that rigid laws would prohibit. The crisis of World War II exemplified such a situation, justifying a break from the two-term tradition. President Roosevelt was elected to a third term in 1940 and a fourth in 1944.

Similarly, the British government extended Winston Churchill's term in 1940, amending the Parliament Act, which mandated general elections every five years. These were extraordinary circumstances, and deviations from conventions are intended for such times. However, the difference lies in the aftermath. Once the war concluded, the British returned to their established convention. In the United States, concerns that the two-term convention could not be reinstated—coupled with fears of executive overreach fueled by Roosevelt's strong presidency—led to the ratification of the Twenty-Second Amendment. 

Since then, presidents from both parties, including Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, have expressed disappointment over their inability to pursue a third term. Now, presidential term limits are a constitutional mandate. But should that be the case? Would it be preferable to follow a convention, as the British do, allowing for the necessary flexibility during emergencies? Or would the absence of a constitutional restriction lead to presidents seeking third terms (or more), potentially ending the two-term convention and reviving the risk of an “elective monarchy,” as warned by George Mason?