No Path to 3rd Trump Term
Let's not take that chance.
The 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars anyone from being President for more than two terms. This rule is unique. The House of Representatives does not have term limits. Neither do Senators. Supreme Court judges receive permanent, lifetime appointments. However, the President of the United States, who arguably has the most impact on American lives, is limited to two terms.
The reason is fairly straightforward. You do not want one person remaining in power indefinitely and shaping the country in his mold. It's dangerous and has the potential to lead to a dictatorship. This rule was implemented to prevent individuals like Trump from becoming emperors of the state.
On Thursday, Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow President Donald Trump to be elected to a third term in the White House.
He parroted the typical line that all sycophants who wish to please the supreme leader use. According to Andy Ogles, Trump “has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal.”
Instead of challenging Trump's assertion that he alone can save the nation in a country of 335 million, the former 'we hug the constitution' party now claims only Trump can do it and that he needs another term.
The measure will fail. I am not saying it is likely to fail. I am stating it will fail.
Then why bring the proposal forward and let it fail in the House? Before we analyze why the GOP introduced the measure so early into Trump’s second term, we need to first understand why it would fail.
Jack Smith's report made it clear that if Trump had not been elected as President, he would have been in jail. If the GOP passes the amendment, Trump will likely stand at the doors of the Senate to sign it. The problem is that any constitutional amendment needs a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate.
That means 290 votes out of 435 House members, and 67 of the 100 senators. Once it is approved by Congress, the proposal must be ratified by either state legislatures or state conventions in 38 states.
The GOP currently has 218 votes in the House, 53 in the Senate and controls 28 state legislatures.
So, the GOP bringing the measure to the House is all about getting media coverage, normalizing the discussion around Donald Trump gaining a third term. They also want Democratic voters to feel dejected and feel an acute sense of loss that they do not show up to vote the next time.
But let us not forget this is the same party that played along with Trump when he tried to overturn the 2020 Presidential election results. They let him go scot-free after inciting the insurrection. They have pardoned violent criminals who attacked police officers. Now, they are trying to rewrite history as it happened on January 6th.
Hiding behind the rule book is not exactly a great strategy when dealing with a group that is intent on writing rules as it sees fit. Right now, most of the radical ideas that the GOP wants to push through will not happen because the GOP only has 218 seats in the House. Once the special elections are over for the seats that became vacant because Trump picked those House members for his administration, the GOP will be at 220.
That margin is not even enough to lift the debt ceiling on their own. They will have to work with Democrats under the current conditions. That small margin still acts as a significant protector against the GOP’s radical ideas from testing the structure.
The best way to prevent any chance of this happening is to take the House back in 2026. If the gavel moves over to the blue line, then there won’t be any need to worry about what is possible and how much of the checks and balances remain in the system and if they are capable of withstanding the GOP’s corrosion test.
It's prudent to exercise caution. Should the GOP secure the House with a 20 to 30 seat margin in 2026, there's no guarantee that the Constitution will be interpreted as intended.
We shouldn't risk it.
A great source for reading about the Constitution: National Constitution Center
Reassuring analysis, thanks!