We should all remember that this stuff is fringe until it's not.
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
43 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10264 readers
12 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
nor serve any additional term after serving two consecutive terms
Why do I get the impression that this specific detail is was put in to preclude Obama? Being about the only living D former president they might worry about. Going to have to brush up on my amendment procedures but I seem to recall it needing either 2/3 or 3/4 of Congress to even get to the states.
Why do I get the impression that this specific detail is was put in to preclude Obama?
It seems like that because that's exactly what it is.
I am skeptical this is about Trump or 3rd terms at all, apart from creating the veneer of legality their base uses to continue their calculated disregard for the harm they are doing. They know that an Amendment is impossible to pass via congress in this climate, so I wonder if this is just a vehicle to re-interpret the requirements for a ConCon (Article V Constitutional Convention) amendment.
For a little background, Article V of the Constitution stipulates that Amendments can only be passed by 2 methods:
- 2/3 votes in both the House and Senate
- 3/4 votes by State Legislatures, in a Convention to be initiated by 2/3 of State Legislatures
This has been attempted not infrequently, but has never successfully happened. All 27 Amendments have been passed through Congress, and a ConCon has never been called since the first one (when the Constitution was initially ratified). It's a particularly fancied route by Conservatives, because 1) Red state legislatures tend to be more 'radical' conservatives then their respective congresspersons, and 2) there are no fixed limits on what can happen in a ConCon: you could call one for any stated purpose, and then just decide to propose whatever the hell you want when you're there.
Article V is also very short, being one single sentence. This is the entirety of the text:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Given our current SCOTUS and Trump and his ilk, I would be worried that they will try to "re-interpret"
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States
to mean 3/4 of the states present at the ConCon. In a scenario where 34 states (2/3) hold one and exclude others from taking part, this could lower the number of states required to ratify a new Amendment from 38 to 26, putting Amendments squarely within reach of Trump's 2024 bloc of 27 states. At that point, they could literally "amend" in anything and everything.
Representative Andy Ogles' push to allow Trump to run for office in 2028
some fun facts about Andy Ogles:
Nov 2023: He doesn't report having checking or savings. So where did Andy Ogles get $320,000 for his campaign?
May 2024: US Rep. Andy Ogles falsely claimed $320,000 campaign loan, instead calls money a 'pledge'
Aug 2024: FBI agents execute search warrant on Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles, NewsChannel 5 confirms
Jan 8 2025: Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles stalls FBI investigation with behind-the-scenes court battle
Jan 24 2025: Facing FBI investigation that Trump could halt, Andy Ogles proposes allowing third term for president
Those are fun
Just trying to emulate Russia. While doing so would be an ironic end to the US, I think we can pass on that.
@jarfil Not a single sane democracy allows for more than two terms (usually 8-10 years in total) during peace time. Russia is a special case and is undemocratic nevertheless. Trump getting a third term likely opens the road for the demise of the American democracy.
TIL Australia is not a sane democracy.
The difference is countries that vote for parties vs voting for an individual. I don't know why anyone would think one person would have the best interests of the country at heart.
Nor Canada.
Does any commonwealth country have that sort of term limits?
Not that I'm aware of? Technically the king/queen is head of state and that term is until death, can't get much longer than that.
Or abdication.
Technically the king/queen is head of state
Technically, yes, but I was referring to the elected president/prime minister who is the head of the functional (as opposed to ceremonial) government.
Sanity doesn't create our system,
If the PM survives the voters, their Party dances them out, if the PM survives the Party, the PM resigns to spend more time with "family", if the PM survives the "family", the GG.... Kerrtails.
The PMs power at any given time can seem a bit Schroedinger's cat.
It probably depends how much fractional power and money is behind the PM. John Howard was PM for a decade after all.
@spiffmeister hah! Are you able to be president for more than 2 consecutive terms in peace time?
(I heard France doesn't prohibit more than two terms either, but they have to not be consecutive)
Well Australia doesn't have a president. But in theory there's nothing stopping someone from being prime minister for infinite time, provided their party doesn't stab them in the back or their party doesn't lose the election.
Is Sue Lines, the President of the Senate, a joke to you! For interest, they also have no set term limits.
@spiffmeister oh, I see. Well, technically, a prime-minister is a different thing, so you're right in this regard, but yeah, practically no one has been a prime minister for very long. It's a bit of a complicated thing
Agreed that PM is different, they don't weild the same power the US president does. But in terms of time, Robert Menzies was pm for a total of 18 years and John Howard was pm for 12, so you can be for a long time. Politics have just been much less stable in the last 20 years.
Germany also doesn't have term limits, Merkel did ~~three~~four.
She was also not the president
I know, but we are talking about the head of executive, not the title.
He's gonna fucking croak this term, why are they trying to make a dead guy president forever?
Testing the waters for Constitutional changes, precedent for the next one, for example Vance 2036.
The puppet is less important than what the hand up its arse is able to do with said puppet.
Vance is a monarchist. Just sayin'.