1:49pm
1:49pm, 24 Jan 2025
1,940 posts
|
Weean
en.wikipedia.org "The amendment prohibits anyone who has been elected president twice from being elected again." So for the true MAGA faithful, being as 2016 was stolen and Trump has already been elected twice (just not ratified the second time), surely he was ineligible. Although with equal MAGA logic, you might was well say that this already points to the 22nd amendment being now null and void. |
1:53pm
1:53pm, 24 Jan 2025
26,466 posts
|
larkim
SPR wrote: @larkim but you have to look at the whole American system and they specifically barred it after it happened, it's not just a random rule. So now the question is why overturn it just so Trump can stand again? I did start my observation with "if it wasn't Trump..." So at no point do I think it's rational to overturn it simply based on one individual. I'm just suggesting that the 2 term rule need not be a hard and fast for eternity if a mature public discourse about why 3 might be "good" can be had. |
2:04pm
2:04pm, 24 Jan 2025
46,893 posts
|
SPR
But if it wasn't for Trump, we wouldn't be discussing it and generally these discussions start when someone specific wants to stay for longer. If I read this correctly, the change here is essentially to allow Trump to do a third term because he was rejected by the public in 2020 which is obviously silly. |
|
2:25pm
2:25pm, 24 Jan 2025
46,894 posts
|
SPR
This has limits across the world. en.m.wikipedia.org Not looked at it yet but I'd generally expect presidents to have limits while PMs in theory are controlled by parliament so not as worried about them. I do seem to remember Putin swapping from President to Prime Minister to main power so it's not foolproof (of course there, he could do whatever he wanted). |
2:39pm
2:39pm, 24 Jan 2025
544 posts
|
DaveG
Anything in the US constitution can be changed by Congress at any time. So what it says now and what it says in 3 years could be different. I can't see a way for Trump to get a third term. There will be lots of Republicans wanting the candidacy in 2028 and it will be their first chance in a decade. They'll want to look loyal at the moment, but as soon as it gets close to people showing their hands Trump will be firmly put in his place. There's no way Trump is being impeached in the first two years of his term, as if he is he could stand again as it only discounts if you've served half the term. But after that, there will be lots of people showing enough self-interest to prevent any attempts to cling on. |
2:42pm
2:42pm, 24 Jan 2025
7,297 posts
|
paulcook
SPR wrote: This has limits across the world. en.m.wikipedia.org Not looked at it yet but I'd generally expect presidents to have limits while PMs in theory are controlled by parliament so not as worried about them. I do seem to remember Putin swapping from President to Prime Minister to main power so it's not foolproof (of course there, he could do whatever he wanted). Vice President Unlimited 4-year terms (Partly going off Putin's get around), can Trump stand as VP? And then step in after a week! |
|
2:55pm
2:55pm, 24 Jan 2025
26,467 posts
|
larkim
It was only in 1947 that the 2 term rule was added to the consitution. All I'm saying is that IF WE TAKE TRUMP OUT OF THE EQUATION then a discussion about 3 term or more Presidents doesn't feel dictatorial or seditious. It might well be a debating point as to whether allowing more than 2 terms does in fact turn the President into more of a dictator, but it's not so wildly ridiculous to at least have the debate. Obviously we can't take Trump out of the question at the moment; he adds unnecessary emotion and context to what otherwise could be a perfectly rational first year Politics degree question - "Discuss the argument that allowing 3 term presidents might benefit democracy or government effectiveness in the USA?" |
|
2:56pm
2:56pm, 24 Jan 2025
26,468 posts
|
larkim
DaveG wrote: Anything in the US constitution can be changed by Congress at any time. So what it says now and what it says in 3 years could be different. 2/3 congress plus 3/4 of the states too. Constitutional amendments need pretty robust bi partisan support to get through. |
5:11pm
5:11pm, 24 Jan 2025
5,784 posts
|
J2R
SPR wrote: I'm not sure the insurrectionists have the power to get Trump third term by force (they are definitely emboldened by lack of consequences) as the army would surely step in? I don't think they do have the power, and I'm sure the army would step in. But Trump would have no hesitation in commanding them to do so, and they would obey, and there would be bloodshed (hopefully largely theirs). |
5:41pm
5:41pm, 24 Jan 2025
33,610 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Constitutional amendments are extremely difficult to carry, and in a divided country they are effectively impossible. Only 1 since 1971 and that was originally proposed 200 years ago, it seems. Trumpery needs to go, because if it carries on in its present course the country will split in two. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jan 2025
-
Economics
Jan 2025
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018