The inauguration of President Obama on Monday marks the last ceremony he will swear in as president … or does it?

New York congressman, Jose Serrano, recently reintroduced legislation that would abolish the presidential term limit by repealing the 22nd amendment. The amendment states that a president should be allowed to serve in office for no more than two terms.

However, the amendment was put in place for a reason and should not be repealed because it could eventually do more harm than good.

In order to defer from going into a long history lesson, I will just say that the two term limit did not start out as a law, but it was followed as a precedent. For example, George Washington declined to run for a third term even though he was a shoe-in.

The following United States presidents followed suit until President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt was the only president that served more than two terms in the Oval Office and the 22nd amendment was put in place to prevent that from happening again.

At the time Roosevelt stayed in office past the two term precedent Washington set, Republicans held the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The reason the 22nd amendment was established in the first place was so that a United States president would not be able to act as a king-like figure. That is the reason behind “checks and balances” in the government as well.

Having no law about presidential office term limits worked well at first because no president went over the two term limit. After Roosevelt’s four terms, the amendment was put in place so that no one president could take advantage of the position. Roosevelt had too much power at the time, which is something our government has tried to withhold from any one person so as not to create any dictator-type power.

The purpose of the amendment is so that no one man or woman can have too much power. With any amount of unchecked power, there is a possibility of that person taking
advantage of it.

One of the great things about the United States is the democracy and the representation of the people within the government. If a president were in office too long, there is a possibility that the House of Representative and the Senate would gain too many representatives of one party. If this were to happen, the country would not be able to operate in a fair and practical manner.

If Serrano’s legislation were to go through, I don’t think it would be in the best interest of the country. There would be more chance of destruction than of prosperity for the U.S. and that would be the case whether or not it would be Obama in office.

In this case, history should take precedent and we should take into consideration the wisdom of George Washington’s behavior. The government should acknowledge the reasoning behind the amendment in the first place and defend it as a vital part of the constitution.