On facts, law, and Citizens United
Why was the Constitution was amended to limit presidents to two terms?
It was amended as a reaction to Republican butthurt over FDR.
To spare you the Wikipedia history of the 22nd Amendment, the money line is "The Republican-controlled 80th Congress approved a twenty-second Amendment in March 1947."
It was done as soon as the Republicans had the opportunity to get it passed after FDR's death.
There is no question that, on the facts, the 22nd Amendment was "aimed at" the most consequential Democratic president, and the most consequential president of the 20th Century.
The facts which are behind the development of a legal principle are not the legal principle itself. Everyone knows their "Miranda rights" based on the case involving a man who, no doubt, was a brutal rapist and was convicted of it anyway.
When you are read your "Miranda rights" upon arrest, it is not an homage to a rapist, it is a consequence of the legal principle arising from one of the appeals in his case. He is our nation's most celebrated rapists.
Citizens United was indeed - on a factual level - about a right wing financed outfit that wanted to make a political film. It was not about giving money to candidates - it was about the right to make a political film. Absolutely, a film designed to dissuade people from voting for that candidate, and thus considered "electioneering".
And, absolutely, the target of that film was Hillary Clinton.
But Clinton has nothing to do with the legal principle in that case any more so than Ernesto Miranda is some kind of civil rights hero. In this primary election cycle, it is also a simple incontrovertible fact that Clinton is by far a greater beneficiary of the RULE OF LAW that was established in Citizen's United.
When people object to Citizen's United, it is not over the facts of the case, it is over the principle established by the decision. To respond with "but it was about Clinton" is beside the point.
Now who was the FIRST president impacted by the 22nd Amendment? It was Ronald Reagan - and there was no shortage of regret among Republicans over that. To claim "but it was targeted against a Democrat" is similarly beside the point - the first impact was against a Republican. That's the difference between factual context and rule of law.
