What does the 22nd Amendment say about presidential term limits, and how has it been interpreted historically?
Executive summary
The Twenty‑Second Amendment limits how many times a person may be elected President—generally two four‑year terms—and sets a partial exception for someone who succeeds to a term with two years or less remaining, allowing up to ten years of service in practice (two full terms plus up to two years of a predecessor’s term) [1] [2]. Its text bars election to the presidency more than twice but has produced interpretive questions about succession, service versus election, and whether a twice‑elected president can later serve as vice president and thereby succeed to the office [3] [4].
1. What the amendment actually says — the text and the practical rule
The amendment’s operative sentence is concise: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” and it adds that anyone who has “held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected…more than once,” a formulation that produces the familiar eight‑ to ten‑year ceiling depending on succession timing [1] [3] [2].
2. Why it was written — Roosevelt and a political reaction
The immediate political trigger was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four consecutive elections; his unprecedented third and fourth terms broke the long informal two‑term norm set by George Washington and led Congress to pass the amendment in 1947 and the states to ratify it in 1951 amid concerns about concentration of executive power and wartime precedent [5] [6] [7].
3. The exception and the ten‑year rule — mechanics of succession
If a vice president or other successor serves two years or less of a predecessor’s term, that successor may still be elected twice; if they serve more than two years of the prior term, they may be elected only once—hence the practical maximum of about ten years for some successors [2] [8].
4. Interpretive disputes — election vs. service and the vice‑presidential puzzle
Lawyers and scholars note the language bars only “election” more than twice, which raises thorny questions about whether a twice‑elected former president could be appointed or elected vice president and then “succeed” (not be elected) to the presidency; the Library of Congress’s Constitution Annotated observes the amendment “bars only the election of two‑term Presidents” and that debate continues about interplay with the Twelfth Amendment’s bar on vice‑presidential eligibility for those constitutionally ineligible to the presidency [4] [7].
5. Judicial treatment and legal silence
The Supreme Court has not squarely adjudicated the 22nd Amendment’s key ambiguities; while the Court in unrelated contexts has treated term limits as qualifications for office, commentators note that the amendment has “yet to be applied” in a way that would resolve questions about vice‑presidential succession or whether the amendment limits “service” rather than just “election” [9] [4] [10].
6. Attempts to repeal, alternate proposals, and political debate
Since ratification, members of both parties have periodically proposed repeal or modification—dozens of joint resolutions have been introduced over decades—reflecting ongoing political disagreement over whether the two‑term ceiling remains appropriate in modern political life, with commentators even suggesting alternatives like limiting consecutive terms only [9] [5].
7. What remains unsettled and why it matters
The amendment establishes a firm democratic restraint—preventing repeated election to the presidency beyond two terms—yet its precise scope is unsettled on procedural edge cases (vice‑presidential succession, appointment versus election, and interplay with other constitutional clauses); these ambiguities matter politically because they create conceivable, if contested, pathways by which a twice‑elected president might still return to power under extraordinary circumstances [4] [11] [7].