Muslim World Report

Greg Kelly Questions Constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 30, 2025 2:11 PM | 10 min read | 2077 words

TL;DR: Greg Kelly’s critique of the 22nd Amendment raises significant questions about presidential term limits and their constitutional validity. This discussion could have profound implications, not just for American democracy but also on a global scale, impacting how term limits are perceived and implemented in other countries.

The Constitution at a Crossroads: Greg Kelly and the Debate on Presidential Term Limits

In a striking commentary aired on Newsmax, host Greg Kelly questioned the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment, which limits U.S. presidents to two terms in office. Kelly’s remarks have ignited a vital conversation about presidential term limits and prompted a deeper examination of how constitutional interpretations evolve over time.

By asserting that the 22nd Amendment may itself be unconstitutional, he implies that the laws governing presidential terms could be as fluid as public opinion. This perspective evokes historical precedents, such as:

  • The repeal of Prohibition, where societal shifts led to significant changes in constitutional law (Fallon, 2005).

Just as the repeal of Prohibition reflected a nation willing to reconsider its values and governance in response to changing societal norms, the conversation around presidential term limits invites us to ponder the evolving nature of democracy itself. This rhetoric underscores a broader trend within American political discourse that seeks to challenge established norms while provoking debate over the foundational legal frameworks upon which the nation was built.

Questioning the constraints on presidential terms raises fundamental inquiries about:

  • Democratic integrity
  • The balance of power
  • The mechanisms through which political authority is exercised

The founding fathers understood the dangers of autocracy, designing the Constitution—including the 22nd Amendment—to prevent any single individual from consolidating excessive power (Murray et al., 2018). Could it be that today’s political landscape, marked by divided opinions and increasing polarization, necessitates a reevaluation of these constraints to better align with contemporary democratic values?

The Potential Consequences of Repealing the 22nd Amendment

Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed, the consequences would ripple throughout the American political landscape and beyond. Allowing incumbent presidents to run for reelection indefinitely would fundamentally alter the democratic framework that has governed U.S. politics for over seventy years. Such a scenario could exacerbate political polarization, reminiscent of the power struggles seen in historical regimes where leadership became synonymous with tyranny.

Key Political Consequences:

  1. Shift in Political Calculus: Candidates would feel compelled to secure their positions and entrench their ideologies, much like feudal lords in medieval Europe who fortified their castles to protect their power.
  2. Aggressive Campaign Strategies: There would be an increase in attempts to manipulate the electoral process (Iyengar et al., 2018), paralleling the Machiavellian tactics employed by political figures throughout history who prioritized personal gain over public good.
  3. Voter Disillusionment: Voters might feel alienated by a system that appears to favor incumbents over democratic representation (Howell, 2005), reflecting the disenfranchisement felt by citizens in autocratic states where elections are mere formalities.
  4. Increased Division: The existing political landscape could become even more fractious, engendering sentiments of resentment among the electorate (Petrocik, 1996; Diamond, 2002), similar to the rifts that led to the Civil War when differing ideologies could no longer coexist peacefully.

With the potential for long-term incumbency, the political discourse may devolve into an environment characterized by hostility and divisiveness, raising a crucial question: If leaders are allowed to cling to power indefinitely, what becomes of the very essence of democracy that thrives on change and renewal?

International Implications of Repeal

Internationally, the repeal of term limits could embolden authoritarian leaders who might view this development as tacit approval for their own attempts to maintain power. Much like a ripple effect on the surface of a pond, the U.S. action may lead nations struggling with democratic aspirations to perceive the United States as a model of governance, facilitating a domino effect that undermines democratic values globally, particularly where U.S. influence remains significant.

Countries with fragile democratic institutions could take cues from the U.S. example, leveraging this narrative to justify their own extensions of power. For instance, in countries like Venezuela and Turkey, leaders have already manipulated legal frameworks to extend their terms, framing their actions as necessary for national stability. This could lead to an environment where the erosion of democratic norms is not only tolerated but actively promoted under the guise of stability and continuity. As we observe these trends, we must ask: what price are we willing to pay for the illusion of stability, and at what point do we recognize that true stability can only be built on a foundation of democratic principles?

What If Public Sentiment Moves Towards Term Limits?

Conversely, if public sentiment decisively rejects the notion of removing term limits, the implications for the political landscape could be profound. Much like the waves of change that swept through various nations during the Arab Spring, an informed electorate may rise against the idea of indefinite incumbency, demanding enhanced accountability and transparency from their elected officials. Just as those who rallied for democracy understood the need for change to prevent autocratic rule, so too might voters recognize that term limits serve as a safeguard against the stagnation of power. Are we, as citizens, prepared to take a stand for a political system that encourages fresh ideas and diverse leadership?

Empowering the Electorate

An increasingly aware electorate may react strongly against notions of indefinite incumbency, leading to more pronounced demands for accountability and transparency from elected officials. Much like the citizens of ancient Athens, who held their leaders accountable through public scrutiny, today’s voters can harness their collective strength to reshape the political landscape. This shift could unify a politically fragmented environment:

  • Traditional conservatives and liberals might find common ground in preserving democratic integrity, reminiscent of the bipartisan support seen during the push for civil rights in the 1960s.
  • The notion that political power should reflect the will of the people could reinvigorate civic engagement and voter turnout, as history shows us that moments of collective action, such as the Women’s Suffrage Movement, can lead to transformative change in governance.

Grassroots movements advocating for term limits could emerge, framed not just as a legal measure but as a moral imperative to uphold democratic values (Murray et al., 2018). Will the electorate’s newfound resolve echo the bold demands for change seen in past struggles for democracy, or will it fade into complacency?

Global Solidarity

In a global context, a unified stance may invigorate U.S. support for democratic movements in other countries, particularly those grappling with authoritarianism. This support must be framed as solidarity among those striving for genuine self-determination, akin to the way countries rallied around the cause of freedom during the Cold War, where international support played a crucial role in undermining oppressive regimes (Murray et al., 2018; Barnard, 2002).

As the U.S. electorate rallies around the preservation of term limits, it may inspire similar movements abroad, fostering a renewed commitment to democratic governance worldwide. Just as the fall of the Berlin Wall symbolized a collective yearning for freedom, so too can the U.S. commitment to democracy serve as a beacon for those seeking to break free from the chains of authoritarianism. What if the next wave of democracy emerges not from within a nation, but from the solidarity extended by others who understand the value of self-determination?

What If the Debate Leads to Increased Political Instability?

If the ongoing debate surrounding presidential term limits leads to heightened political instability, the ramifications could extend beyond U.S. borders, impacting global perceptions of American democracy. Much like the political turmoil during the Weimar Republic in Germany, where instability and dissatisfaction with democratic processes contributed to the rise of extremist movements, similar scenarios could unfold in the U.S. This instability could manifest in various ways, including:

  • Increased civil unrest
  • Challenges to electoral integrity
  • Widespread discontent among voters skeptical of the political system’s reliability

The internal strife resulting from this instability may prompt calls for reform from unexpected quarters. Citizens witnessing their democracy unravel might demand a recalibration of the political system, advocating for measures that enhance electoral integrity, transparency, and accountability. Can a nation that prides itself on democratic ideals afford to ignore the voices of its citizens when those voices raise concerns about the very foundation of their governance?

International Perception of Instability

In this climate, the U.S. might face international criticism, particularly from nations that looked to America as a beacon of democracy. Countries experiencing governance issues may leverage American instability to justify their undemocratic practices. Just as the fall of the Roman Empire emboldened regional powers to challenge its authority, the perception of American democracy as fragile could similarly inspire nations to defy democratic norms.

Consider the implications: if allies begin to view American ideals as unreliable, how might this shift their own governance strategies? The perception of American fragility could affect diplomatic relations in several profound ways:

  • Allied countries may become wary of projecting American values, fearing the repercussions of association with a faltering democracy.
  • A decline in the U.S.’s standing as a moral authority could reshape international coalitions, prompting a reevaluation of alliances that were once thought unbreakable.

In a world where credibility is currency, how much influence can a nation wield when its foundations appear shaky?

Mitigating Instability

To mitigate these risks, strategic action from all stakeholders is necessary. Political parties must engage in genuine dialogue about the importance of term limits and the democratic process. Consider the historical example of the United States in the early 20th century, when the introduction of term limits for the presidency through the 22nd Amendment was a response to the unprecedented tenure of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This change reflected a collective recognition of the need for democratic renewal and a safeguard against the stagnation of political power.

Recommendations for Action:

  • Media Outlets: Challenge sensationalistic narratives that seek to undermine constitutional integrity, much like the investigative journalism that held powerful figures accountable during the Watergate scandal.
  • Civic Organizations: Mobilize citizens to actively participate in the democratic process. Just as grassroots movements historically spurred significant changes—like the suffragette movement or the civil rights movement—modern civic engagement can reshape public discourse around term limits.

Fostering a culture of accountability and civic engagement will be critical in navigating the uncertain waters of political discourse surrounding term limits. If citizens can unite around a shared commitment to democracy, akin to the way diverse communities rallied for change in pivotal moments, they can contribute to a robust political culture prioritizing the public good over partisan interests. In a landscape rife with division, can we envision a future where civic engagement becomes the norm rather than the exception?

Conclusion

The ongoing debate surrounding the 22nd Amendment and presidential term limits is not merely an internal American concern; it holds profound implications for global politics, especially in contexts where democratic institutions are fragile. Historical examples, such as the rise of authoritarian regimes in the wake of prolonged leadership—like the long tenures of leaders in countries such as Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe or Venezuela under Hugo Chávez—serve as stark reminders of what can occur when power is concentrated in the hands of one individual for too long. Understanding the nuances of this conversation is essential for those committed to challenging imperialism and advocating for genuine self-determination, particularly in Muslim-majority nations facing struggles against authoritarianism.

As we navigate this critical discourse, it becomes imperative to remain vigilant about the implications of our discussions and actions. Are we, in our pursuit of stability, inadvertently paving the way for despotism? Recognizing that the fate of democratic governance, both domestically and internationally, may hinge on the choices we make in the days to come is crucial. The lessons from history remind us that every decision carries the weight of potential consequences, and we must choose wisely.

References

  • Barnard, A. (2002). Democracy and Governance in the Islamic World: A Comparative Perspective.
  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory and the Evolution of Public Opinion.
  • Diamond, L. (2002). Thinking About Hybrid Regimes.
  • Fallon, R. (2005). The Repeal of Prohibition and Its Constitutional Legacy.
  • Howell, W. (2005). Evolving Views of Presidential Power in America.
  • Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Le, K., & Mann, C. (2018). The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States: A Social Identity Perspective.
  • Murray, C., & others. (2018). American Democracy in Crisis: The Erosion of Democratic Norms.
  • Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1986 Case Study.
  • Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online.
← Prev Next →