Repealing the 22nd Amendment

One would think The Times would be so relieved that the 22nd Amendment, limiting the President to two terms, prevents us from reelecting Reagan again that it would support this superior part of the Constitution. Instead, it calls for repeal again. Why?

The presumptive theory is that we will be depriving ourselves of some greatly superior leader at some moment of crisis in the future. Two hundred years of history show that the superiority of the leader and the existence of a crisis both are illusions. Indeed, the closest case was the reverse. Lincoln, arguably our greatest President, came into office in the midst of our greatest crisis. His success shows clearly we need not fear the new man in the office.

So far the 22nd Amendment has deprived us of Dwight D. Eisenhower and now Reagan. Neither ranks as indispensable. The major probability that both would have run, and won easily, makes hash of the claim that a third term would be reserved for special cases. Going back to Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, we note that the “crisis” in 1940 was a war that we stayed out of for over an additional year, plenty of time to train a new man in office. In 1944, Roosevelt was a dying man, lucky to live into his fourth term. We got an accidental President, an argument for the 22nd Amendment even if one likes Harry S. Truman.

In business, it is widely accepted that the top boss should be changed every few years.

It is hard enough to get rid of sitting Presidents. Let’s not make it any harder.

DAVID CARL ARGALL

La Puente