How would repealing the 22nd Amendment affect the balance of power in the US government?

1. What the 22nd Amendment actually does — a short legal baseline

The 22nd Amendment bars anyone from being elected President more than twice and adds a rule about succession timing (someone who has served more than two years of another’s term can be elected only once), so it constrains how long an individual may hold the presidency through election, not every pathway to serving as president ^[1]. Constitutional commentators note its plain language is narrowly about election eligibility, which fuels debates over edge cases like succession or vice‑presidential elevation, but the core effect is straightforward: elected presidents are limited to two terms ^{[1] [4]}.

2. How repeal would shift the immediate balance of power — incumbency and continuity

Removing the two‑term cap would strengthen incumbency as a structural advantage: presidents could run for additional terms, increasing the chance of prolonged single‑person control over the executive and more continuity in policy and appointments. Analysts who favor repeal argue this could be useful during crises or for long‑term projects; critics warn it would erode political competition and concentrate power in one individual ^{[5] [6]}. The practical result would depend on electoral dynamics, institutional checks, and public opinion, which the sources highlight as the decisive variables ^{[6] [5]}.

3. Institutional checks that remain even after repeal

Even if the 22nd Amendment were repealed, other constitutional and political checks would continue to limit presidential power: congressional oversight, judicial review, impeachment, and state‑level political pressures. Sources note that the amendment addresses only term limits and does not change separation‑of‑powers mechanisms already in the Constitution, so repeal would not by itself remove legal or institutional constraints on executive action ^{[1] [7]}. However, proponents of the amendment have historically framed it as an extra safeguard against concentration of executive power born of fear of dictators abroad ^[4].

4. Political dynamics and incentives — parties, Congress, and public trust

Repeal would alter incentives for parties and Congress. With indefinite re‑eligibility, parties might coalesce more around an incumbent, reducing primary competition and strengthening party leaders allied with the president; conversely, opposition parties would have stronger incentives to mobilize against a long‑time incumbent. Commentators argue this could either stabilize governance or deepen polarization and undermine public trust, depending on whether extended incumbency is perceived as legitimate or as entrenchment ^{[6] [8]}.

5. Practical obstacles to repeal — the near‑insurmountable procedural hill

Any repeal requires a new constitutional amendment: two‑thirds of both congressional chambers plus ratification by three‑quarters ^[2] of the states, a high threshold that has frustrated past repeal attempts and kept the 22nd Amendment in place. Sources stress the logistical and political difficulty by noting only one amendment—the 18th—has ever been repealed, and that required convening the complex process that produced the 21st Amendment ^[3].

6. Historical debate and competing viewpoints

Supporters of repeal emphasize democratic choice and continuity—arguing voters should decide whether to retain a successful leader—while opponents emphasize limits on executive power and historical lessons from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms and mid‑20th century concerns about authoritarianism ^{[8] [9]}. Ronald Reagan publicly favored repeal as an infringement on democratic rights, while many in the post‑Roosevelt era saw the amendment as a corrective safeguard; the record of repeated but unsuccessful repeal proposals reflects enduring disagreement ^{[10] [5] [11]}.

7. Key limitations in available reporting and open questions

Available sources set out the legal text, historical context, and political arguments but do not model specific empirical outcomes if repeal occurred—e.g., whether longer incumbencies would measurably weaken Congress or courts, or how public trust would change quantitatively—so predictions about downstream effects remain speculative in current reporting ^{[3] [6]}. Available sources do not mention detailed scenario modeling or contemporary polling on hypothetical repeal beyond high‑level arguments (not found in current reporting).

Conclusion: Repealing the 22nd Amendment would remove a clear constitutional curb on presidential tenure and likely strengthen incumbency and continuity while raising risks of political entrenchment; substantial procedural barriers and competing political views have, so far, kept the amendment intact ^{[1] [3] [6]}.