A Republican House member introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow President Donald Trump — and any other future president — to be elected to serve a third term.
″No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms,” the amendment states.
They are trying to make sure Obama can’t run again
The process to amend the US constitution is so convoluted it will never happen again.
Not in time for Trump to have a 3rd term anyway, if Trump even lives that long.
He’s just showing off how eager he is to get on his knees and lick the boots of the administration before they even asked him too. He needs Trump to know what a good boy he is.
i mean, given his age and health, even if he had the legal right to a third term i’d be shocked if he made it that far. Him croaking during this term isn’t even something I’d be that surprised about
He would be 86 by the end of a third term, bro is absolutely not making it that far.
Surely the grim spectre of death will stop Trump!
Trump: wriggles out
Ah, well, nevertheless…
deleted by creator
Oh fuck his father lived to 93
Weekend at the Corpse president’s
i prefer the sequel where the corpse does a little shuffle towards making a nuclear strike every time he hears “YMCA”.
Many of those who live to very old age (90+) absolutely did not earn it based on a healthy lifestyle. I know this based on several relatives. Genetics are a helluva drug, plus the healthcare a president receives
Yeah I looked up how long his father lived after I wrote this.
Eh the term limits were out there in the first place by Republicans terrified of FDR. Trump probably isn’t going to take it and even if he did I could see the Dems pushing Obama, something Obama’s ego would be more than happy to take on.
Yeah, they thought of that, and made sure this proposal would forbid 2 consecutive terms from having a third, just so it wouldn’t apply to Obama
…didn’t say which obama…
Miss me yet?
Bush will win the democratic party nomination in 2028 and he’ll run against Trump.
Please don’t speak this into existence lol
I’ll note that you didn’t specify which Bush
BUSH vs GOYA 2028!
BATTLE of the BEANS!
SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY!
I mean, the youngest Bush brother hasn’t been activated yet…
Liz Cheney / Jenna Bush 2032
#JennarationBush #Girlboss
Please clap
IT’S TIME TO STOP
OMG. I feel it in my bones
Please step away from the :lathe-of-heaven:
Too real to be a bit
🥰
Trump is just the pretext, they are preparing the ground for an unending GOP Presidency.
We’re going to get Obama’s third term with Kamala as VP, aren’t we?
The last thing he wants is to have to do shit
It’s his turn (again)
Passes and spineless dems show they whole spineless asses then trump dies a few months before his third term. Best timeline
Watch lib brains break all over again at how fast someone else picks up the torch after he croaks.
They already are doing the “we must save western civilization” the next term they might cosplay as Mayday from the Handmaiden lol
From the Handmaiden’s Tale*
We do not equivocate Margaret Attwood and Park Chan-Wook in this house
oh my god they’re actually doing it lmao
Wow, this is unprecedented! Time for bipartisanship to take action!
Hell yeah let’s undo the FDR term limit bill and get more people like him elected.
They’re doing it for the wrong reasons, but I’d be happy if that limit wasn’t there. It’s fundamentally anti-democratic. Not that the us is a democracy and removing it now will just make fascist consolidation of power so much easier, but still
Nah, keeping a limit forces the MIC and other entrenched powers trying to push the US agenda around the world to stay in the bureaucratic shadows instead of gaining decades in the presidency outright.
Not that the us is a democracy and removing it now will just make fascist consolidation of power so much easier, but still
Would he even be alive by a third term?
I wouldn’t have guessed it was a Democratic sponsor.
Why?? This was even before Obama’s 2nd term. Just because they thought they had the numbers?
Honestly, I can’t remember the reasoning. I’m sure there’s a daily Kos article about it or something from back then. I do remember them claiming it wouldn’t apply to Bush, but those of us in left leaning spaces were pretty suspicious.
The current one is different so that unlike that one which would allow Bush or Obama to run again, it would forbid anyone with 2 consecutive terms from a third:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-joint-resolution/29
Are term limits conceptually good? Aren’t they just arbitrary?
It wasn’t until FDR that we made term limits part of the constitution. He served 4 terms that eventually led to the New Deal. The new deal was devastating for the capitalist class at the time, and they have been working tirelessly to undo the effects since. However, I, personally, believe the implementation of this into the constitution was to prevent another series of presidencies as impactful as FDR. This isn’t the first time the legislature attempted to repeal it, either. They tried and failed in 1956. Truman described the law as “Stupid” and one of the worst amendments of the Constitution, next to the Prohibition amendment. Regan also spoke out against it, as well as Bill Clinton. Like many others have pointed out, many western democracies do not have term limits. I think it’s also worth pointing out that many western democracies also do not directly elect their president, but instead their president is elected by the party (much like China does, and how the USSR did, and many other AES states.)
Among socialists, I think we all agree FDR was a capitalist through and through who understood the situation America was in. He used the New Deal to save capitalism from being overthrown by the very real threat of socialist revolution. The New Deal acted as a release valve.
It’s something the generation of New Deal Democrats understood (such as LBJ’s Great Society program) current day democrats don’t. Today’s democrats are so high on their own supply of bullshit Austrian economics they don’t realize the consequences of austerity.
Yeah, that’s good additional context. I think the Republicans at the time, wrapped up in growing anti-communist sentiment, viewed the New Deal as an approach to socialism (by their shallow or non-existent understanding of socialism) that could have only been achieved through FDRs extended presidency. In collaboration with democrats, they passed the 22nd amendment, mostly out of fear that somehow the American people really would “Vote in socialism”, or to at least, not appear to be a dictatorship in the same way they viewed the political process of the USSR. The next 50 years would see the rise of the Think Tank, specifically the Federalist Society, and these institutions abilities to carry forward policy agendas despite a limited term. I’m not sure what would really change if they added a 3rd possible term to the presidency, considering so much policy is now constructed by these think tanks.
IMO I think they aren’t any good in a vacuum but I do think it’s a good thing that the US specifically has them for the president. If they weren’t there, a determined ghoul administration would be much more effective at just running the gauntlet for decades (the eternal Obama). Currently the “deep state” fulfills that function and there’s a limit to how much they can do domestically, with the inherent limit that they have to act behind the scenes.
But even without term limits the president would have to spend just as much time focusing on campaigning, right? You would still have the same amount of elections. The president would still spend just as much time ruling the empire as now.
Yeah, I meant it in the sense that you wouldn’t get the rigamarole we’re seeing right now where one guy comes in, does a few things, the next guy comes in and undoes all of them. One president ruling for decades means they can get a coherent program going, which is bad for the rest of the world.
Okay, I think I understand. Trump wants to fuck with Biden’s legacy who wants to fuck with Trump’s legacy who wants to fuck with Obama’s legacy and so forth. Term limits are good in the US because fuck the US.
The more time a president has in office, the more they can “consolidate power”, which when translated from liberal actually means that they have the time and popularity to take control of the country away from state bureaucracies and entrenched civil society institutions (both of which are the key organs through which the capitalist class’s excercises it’s power).
While trump and the like have no intention of doing anything good with a third term, the reason why so many capitalists/liberals are terrified of fascism/Communism is that these transfer political power from the traditional organs of bourgeois power to the state.
Of course the fascists only do this in order to unify the bourgeoise and eliminate competition amongst them (emergency mode of capitalism).
In this context, term limits in any society come with a big asterisk. Such measures (including stuff like constitutional rights, which in practice only protect the rich) are basically liberal society’s way of operating in normal times. Their degradation across the entire west signals an era of great change. The bourgeoise are gearing up and hardening themselves for class war on a scale never seen before.
Issue is, there’s been a long time since anyone with an ideology even close to rejecting imperialism has gotten close to winning an election at the federal level. Maybe there’s some danger of a new FDR that the technocrats fear, but I think a new FDR would mostly represent revitalizing the mechanisms of exploitation, giving them a new coat of paint. There are capitalists that oppose this out of their short sightedness, but overall it’s not a difference in class perspective, it’s not a change that would move the proles closer to political power.
After all, we believe that this bourgeois state has to be thoroughly dismantled one way or the other before a new socialist state can be built, no? We shouldn’t expect them to make winning moves on our behalf.
This is basically my take as well. Its one of those imperfect solutions to a clearly busted system. If the US was a healthy functioning democracy term limits would probably be bad but between gerrymandering, legalized bribery, and corporate media consolidation about the only reason we don’t have presidents for life at this point is the term limit.
There’s arguments to be made for and against. On one hand, no term limits means someone can focus on governing, rather than constantly running a campaign. Incumbents often have to do less work in this regard because they’re already established. On the other, it means it’s harder to remove incumbents. You see this a lot in local elections where people often run unopposed. They get elected anyway, regardless of their performance.
Some places will just make the terms longer (such as 10 years or more) so a candidate will want to leave office, yet still have time to accomplish what they want. One of the US’s problems is we’re on four year cycles for president and 2 year cycles for congress. This is especially deceptive because of the delay between laws passing and the effects of those laws being seen. The economy is one example. We don’t see the consequences of a president’s economic policies until nearly the end of their second term due to turnover, people moving, companies setting up 5 year plans, stock dividends, etc.
So term limits make a lot of sense in ineffectual systems of government that are more focused on the spectacle of campaigning and elections than the actual governing? I can definitely see how political apathy would lead to incumbents running unopposed but I’m not sure I understand how a lack of term limits automatically benefit the incumbent, other in the fact that they literally have to step down once they reach the limit.
In addition to what Sodium said, incumbents have resources from their office to use, plus they don’t have to deal with bureaucracies other candidates have to go through.
For example, an incumbent meets on a regular basis with the press as part of their position. When campaign season rolls around, they already know the media organizations used to spread their platform. A newer candidate doesn’t have access to those same channels. Then stuff like Bush raising “terrorism possibilities” during his 2004 campaign against John Kerry, something Kerry couldn’t do.
As for the bureaucratic portion, a newer candidate might have to do something like collect signatures in order to run. Their campaign has to spend time going door to door before they’re even on the ballot, just to get on the ballot. The incumbent, however, is automatically on the ballot so their campaign can focus on things like donors. You see this a lot in Congress with party leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. In order to primary Pelosi, a person has to go through a lengthy process in her district to even attempt removing her, then actually running a campaign to remove her. Meanwhile, Pelosi gets to talk to people she’s met through her office, stacking up on donors, endorsements, favors, etc.
I’m not sure I understand how a lack of term limits automatically benefit the incumbent, other in the fact that they literally have to step down once they reach the limit.
The incumbent has a track record whole the challengers are unknown. If the incumbent is doing fine, they have a huge advantage in that people know they will keep things chugging along roughly the same.
The PRC doesn’t have term limits neither do several western countries.
I don’t think any party has ever had term limits imposed on it’s leadership. I remember when the PRC removed their term limits on the (effectively ceremonial) position of president and the US media apparatus freaked out. The media apparatus in other western countries where term limits aren’t a thing had to invite specialist commentators to explain why a lack of term limits in China means dictatorship but it’s all fine in Europe.
Is not having term limits bad? Please consult this handy chart:
this is not even my final form
Consider term limits. The US Constitution was amended to enforce term limits in direct response to FDR’s popular 12-year presidency (he died in office, going on for 16). As a policy, it is self-evidently quite anti-democratic (robbing the people of a choice), but nevertheless it has been conceptually naturalized to the extent that the 2019 coup against Evo Morales was premised explicitly on the idea that repeated popular electoral victories constituted a form of dictatorship. If rotation was important to avoid corruption or complacency, corporations and supreme courts would institute term limits too. Term limits ensure that in the miraculous scenario that a scrupulous, charismatic, and intelligent individual becomes a rebellious political executive, they won’t be in power long enough to meaningfully challenge the entrenched power of corporate vehicles manned by CEOs with decades of experience. Wolfgang Schäuble, a powerful advocate of austerity policy in Europe, succinctly summarized the extent to which electoral democracy is subordinate: “Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy.” One Party States and Democratic Centralism are not the result of lack of sophistication or cronyism, they are a proven bulwark that acknowledges that political power will often need to be exerted against the will of Capital, and so the wielders of said power must necessarily undergo a much more serious vetting process than a popularity contest.
