Believe it or not, the United States spent most of its history without any legal limit on how many times a person could be president. If you wanted to run for a fifth term in 1890, there was technically nothing in the Constitution to stop you.
Well, except for the voters.
And maybe a ghost named George Washington.
For about 150 years, American politics lived by a "handshake agreement" started by Washington. He walked away after two terms, mostly because he was tired and wanted to go back to Mount Vernon. Then Thomas Jefferson did the same, and suddenly it was just... what we did. Breaking that unwritten rule was considered kinda taboo.
That is, until Franklin D. Roosevelt came along.
FDR didn't just break the rule; he smashed it. He won a third term in 1940. Then a fourth in 1944. By the time he died in 1945, he’d been in the White House for over 12 years. Republicans—and a fair number of wary Democrats—basically said, "Never again."
The 22nd Amendment: How it actually works
Ratified on February 27, 1951, the 22nd Amendment isn't just a simple "two-and-done" rule. It’s got some fine print that most people forget about until a Vice President has to step up.
The core of the text says:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."
But there’s a catch. If a Vice President (or anyone else in the line of succession) takes over because the sitting president dies or resigns, the "clock" starts based on how much time was left.
If they serve more than two years of the previous guy’s term, that counts as a full term. They can only be elected on their own once.
If they serve two years or less, it’s like a freebie. They can still run for two full terms of their own.
This means a person could theoretically be president for 10 years total. Lyndon B. Johnson, for example, could have run again in 1968 because he took over after JFK was killed in 1963 with only about 14 months left in that term. He chose not to, but the math worked in his favor.
Why did we even need a law for this?
Honestly, some people think the amendment was a bit of a "revenge act." Republicans had been out of power for nearly two decades under FDR. When they finally took control of Congress in 1946, passing this was priority number one.
Thomas Dewey, who lost to FDR in 1944, called the idea of four terms "the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed." He wasn't alone. People were terrified that a "president-for-life" would basically become an "elective monarch."
Jefferson actually predicted this way back in the 1800s. He worried that without a hard limit, a president would stay in office until they became a "dotard" (his word, not mine) because the people were too attached to them to let go.
The unintended consequences of term limits
There is no such thing as a perfect law. While the 22nd Amendment prevents dictatorships, it also created the "Lame Duck" problem.
As soon as a president starts their second term, everyone knows they’re leaving. Their political capital starts to evaporate. Why should Congress cut a deal with you if you're gone in three years?
The arguments for repeal
Every few years, someone suggests we should get rid of the 22nd Amendment. Ronald Reagan famously toyed with the idea. Bill Clinton mentioned it too.
The "pro-repeal" side usually argues:
- It’s undemocratic. If the people want a guy for a third time, why shouldn't they have him?
- Experience matters. We spend four years training a president, and just when they get good at it, we kick them out.
- Crisis management. If you're in the middle of a massive war or a total economic collapse, changing leaders just because of a calendar date seems... risky.
The arguments for keeping it
On the flip side, most historians agree that term limits are a healthy "reset button" for the country. It forces new blood into the system. It prevents the executive branch from becoming so bloated and entrenched that it’s impossible to challenge.
Without the 22nd Amendment, would we have had the same rotation of ideas? Probably not. Power tends to consolidate.
The "Loophole" myths you've probably heard
Lately, the internet has been full of some pretty wild theories about how a two-term president could come back.
💡 You might also like: The Tri-State Tornado: Why the Strongest Tornado in US History Still Haunts Forecasters
One popular one is the Vice President Loophole. Could a former two-term president run as Vice President, then have the President resign so they can take over?
Legal experts are split on this. The 12th Amendment says no person "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President." Since the 22nd Amendment says you can't be elected more than twice, some argue you’re still "eligible" to hold the office via succession, just not to run for it.
It’s a massive legal headache that would almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court. Most scholars think it wouldn't fly.
What most people get wrong about the history
Most folks think everyone loved the idea of term limits from Day 1. Nope.
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison actually hated the idea. In Federalist No. 72, Hamilton argued that term limits would tempt a president to engage in corruption because they’d want to "make theirs" before they got kicked out. He thought it was better to keep them "on their best behavior" by dangling the hope of re-election in front of them forever.
Washington didn't leave because he believed in a two-term limit; he left because he was 64 years old, his hearing was failing, and he was sick of being attacked by the press. We turned his personal choice into a sacred tradition, and then eventually, into a law.
Practical insights for today
If you’re following the news, the 22nd Amendment is more than just a history lesson. It’s the final guardrail on executive power.
- Check the math: Remember the 10-year rule. It’s the only way anyone gets more than eight years.
- Watch the 12th Amendment: If you ever see a former two-term president on a VP ticket, know that the country is about to enter a constitutional crisis.
- Understand the "Lame Duck": When you see a president’s power fading in their sixth year, don't blame their personality; blame the 22nd Amendment.
The 22nd Amendment was born out of a specific fear of one man (FDR) and one era (the Great Depression/WWII). Whether it still serves us well in 2026 is a debate that isn't going away anytime soon, but for now, it's the absolute law of the land.
To better understand how this affects current elections, you should research the specific ratification dates of the amendment in your own state. Many states ratified it within weeks of the proposal in 1947, showing just how bipartisan the fear of a "permanent president" really was at the time. You can also look up the "Hoover Commission" reports from the late 1940s, which provided the administrative backbone for these changes.