Tag Archives: 22nd Amendment

national news

Wanting to repeal the 22nd

Time for an admission that I hate making, but I’ll do so anyway out of fairness to the integrity of the issue at hand.

As I watch the 44th president of the United States hit the campaign stump for fellow Democrats, I am filled partially with the desire to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, the one that limits presidents to two elected terms.

Barack Obama still has the chops to stir ’em up. He can deliver applause lines like no other politician I have witnessed in the 40-some years I have been covering and watching presidential politics.

Republicans in Congress had grown fearful of an imperial presidency after Franklin Roosevelt was elected to a fourth term in 1944. He took office in March of 1945 and died a month later. FDR was a dead man walking, suffering from blood clots, one of which traveled to his brain and took him out. The GOP intended to preserve the presidency for the common American who could seek the office.

Then we got the clown we have now. Donald Trump won in 2016, lost in 2020, only to refuse to accept that he lost. He instigated the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection. He won again in 2024.

Democrats now are turning to the one home-run hitter sitting on the bench. He’s a former president who reminds us how Republicans used to criticize Democrats for even wanting to talk to Vladimir Putin. Now the former KGB spy is having a “Bromance with Trump,” but that’s OK!

Trouble with Trump, though, is that POTUS No. 47 doesn’t give a crap about the obvious truth coming from Obama … not to mention all the other presidential predecessors.

We won’t repeal the 22nd Amendment. I am actually fine with it. I just wish at times the part of me that resides in Fantasyland could affect public policy in real time.

national news

One year down (almost), three more to go

Listen up, boys and girls, I have some good news to remind you about some news that might cause you some queasiness … as it does for me and I’ve just now thought about it.

The good news is that we’re closing in on the first year of Donald Trump’s second term as POTUS. He took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2025, which means on that date next year — which is just around the corner! — he will have completed the first year of his Retribution Tour.

Now for the rest of it. Dude’s got three more years to wreak havoc on our democratic republic.

I shall qualify the bad news with a few glimmers of hope that we might be able to stem the damage this blowhard can inflict.

The midterm election is coming up next fall. A year from next week! It’ll be here in a flash. We have to prepare for a back-alley brawl with the MAGA cultists. It is winnable. The House of Reps is close to flipping to Democratic control. If the nation can elect a handful of Democrats, we can welcome Hakeen Jeffries as our next speaker. The Senate is a tougher climb, but there appears to be a GOP senator or two who might be vulnerable to defeat. I am not going to toss John Cornyn under that electoral bus … at least not yet.

Trump keeps yammering that he’s in the strongest public approval rating in history. Yeah, he actually has said it. He’s lying. His approval rating at this moment stands at around 41%. President George W. Bush’s rating peaked at around 90% right after 9/11. President Bush the Elder’s rating topped out at 91% when he declared that Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 “will not stand.” President Reagan won a 49-state re-election landslide victory in 1984, garnering 59% of the popular vote. President Nixon also won a 49-state re-election bid in 1972, and with a 62% popular vote.

Finally, Donald Trump said this week that he cannot seek a third term as president. The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment won’t allow it, he acknowledged. So, there … even the insurrectionist in chief has realized that amending the Constitution to allow him to run for a third term is out of the question.

What does all this mean for democracy’s future? It means that Trump is the lamest of ducks and that if he continues to blunder and bumble his way through the rest of his term that there well might be a candidate who can restore regular order to the way we govern this great country.

national news, political news

Trump’s gone loony

Donald J. Trump has flipped that mass of hair on his noggin, gone ’round the bend, has become certifiably nuttier than a Snickers bar.

He says he is considering a way to seek a third term  in the only office he’s ever sought or held. How does he do that? He ain’t saying. Other Trumpkins are concocting ways to skirt around the U.S. Constitution, which has that 22nd Amendment that bars anyone from being elected more than twice to the presidency.

Trump’s been elected twice, to this nation’s ever-lasting shame.

He says “there are ways which you could do it,” meaning he can find a way to get elected a third time as POTUS.

It won’t happen.

Not in this or any lifetime any sane person can envision.

As I said already, Trump isn’t sane. He’s nuts. Bonkers. He’s also an old man who might not live to the end of the current term. He’ll be 83 at the end of the current term. Cognition? Looks like it’s beginning to slip … but that’s just me thinking out loud.

The framers made it difficult to amend the Constitution. They didn’t write a perfect governing document, but they were right to set the bar very high for changing amendments added to it.

The 22nd Amendment is on the books for keeps.

national news

Newest MAGA moron steps up

1 Comment

Step right up, Andy Ogles, and take your place as the latest MAGA moron to exhibit his colors as a blind loyalist to the MAGA man in chief, Donald Trump.

Ogles is a Tennessee Republican House member who has introduced a bill to allow Trump to run for a third presidential term when his current term runs out in January 2029. Ogles, of course, wants to rewrite the Constitution, which bans anyone from being elected president more than twice.

This is the product of a MAGA dipshit who believes Trump is the savior for a nation that, truth be told and heard, is in quite good shape. Ogles’ amendment would limit a third-term president to those who serve non-consecutive terms. That means, quite naturally, that former presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are out, given that they were elected to two consecutive terms.

Let it be understood that the 22nd Amendment was crafted in the late 1940s by Republicans who didn’t want an “imperial presidency,” which they feared when Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt got elected to four terms. It has worked out all right since its ratification in 1951.

I am quite sure that when Trump’s current term is up that Americans will have decided they have had enough of the carnival barker masquerading as a serious politician.

As if one term wouldn’t have sufficed.

political news

No, Steve, he can’t run again

Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s go-to firebreather, now says the future president can seek a third term in 2028.

Hmm. Well, let’s see what the U.S. Constitution says about that. I looked up the 22nd Amendment in my handy-dandy pocket edition of the nation’s government document. It says, in part:

“No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two hears of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” 

Bannon’s reason for Trump standing for election in 2028 is that his two terms are non-consecutive. Therefore, the former federal prisoner says, Trump is eligible to seek a third term.

I did not see any reference to consecutive terms or non-consecutive terms in the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.

Trump has won the office twice. After this term is finished, he’s done. Gone. Finished. And not a moment too soon.

national news

POTUS 45 wants a ‘third term’?

1 Comment

POTUS No. 45 says he would like to hold the presidency for three terms. He said that? Oh, wait. He must’ve been “sarcastic.”

That cannot happen without amending the U.S. Constitution.

The 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two elected terms. The former Liar in Chief won election in 2016. He got defeated in 2020. He could — God forbid! — win it again this year.

That’s two terms, dude. You’re out after that.

I suppose he wants a third term. Maybe even a fourth.

C’mon.

The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951 after President Franklin D. Roosevelt won election to four terms; FDR died about a month after taking office for his fourth term in April 1945. Congressional Republicans had become alarmed at what they feared might become an “imperial presidency.” So, the GOP pushed the 22nd Amendment through.

Most of us know these days about the grandeur that No. 45 seeks, what with declarations about becoming a “dictator” for one day. He expresses admiration for dictators around the world. He wants to be one of them, I reckon.

However, our Constitution prohibits such nonsense from actually occurring. No., 45 needs to read the document. Oh, wait! He doesn’t read anything!

political news

Term limits turn politics on its ear

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

You know how this plays out.

Conservatives who are upset with government want to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to impose new rules that the founders never imagined when they drafted it back in the late 18th century.

What do they want to add to our Constitution? Why, they insist on limiting the terms of members of Congress, House members and senators.

But … wait a second!

Aren’t these folks the so-called “strict constructionists” among us? Aren’t they the individuals who supposedly honor what the founders had in mind when they cobbled together our nation’s government document?

Sure. As long as it suits their current political agenda.

It’s why I continue to resist the idea of term-limiting the legislative branch of government; I also oppose limiting the terms of the federal judiciary. For that matter, I am not at all crazy about term limits for the president of the United States. The founders didn’t limit the POTUS’s term, either. That came in 1947 when congressional Republicans, reportedly fearing an all-powerful presidency (given that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt won four presidential elections) decided to push for the 22nd Amendment; it was ratified in 1951.

However, again I must wonder what happened to the strict constructionist wing of the GOP, which is fond of suggesting that we need to honor what the founders intended originally when they built our country from the ground up?

Sure, we have corrected some of the mistakes the founders made back in the beginning. Women now can vote; we have made slavery illegal, to name just two midcourse corrections.

I continue to believe the founders got it right when they declined to limit terms of service. Indeed, as I long have noted: We already have term limits; we call them “elections.”

national news

‘We’ll negotiate’ … what?

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

There he was, standing before a crowd of worshipers ranting in a riff about a “rigged” election and making what I consider to be a rather startling declaration if — heaven forbid — he actually wins re-election.

Donald Trump said “We’ll negotiate” a way to stay in office past a second presidential term.

I damn near shook the glasses off my face at that one.

Trump keeps yapping about how badly he was treated during much of his current term in office. About the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged “collusion” with Russians seeking to interfere in our election. About the House of Representatives impeaching of Trump over abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. About the ongoing findings by intelligence officials that Mueller was right, that the Russians did interfere.

So what does Trump propose to do at the end of a — gulp! — second term? He wants to see how he circumvent the U.S. Constitution to finagle a third term in office.

The Trumpkins arrayed before him at the Nevada political rally cheered Trump’s ridiculous call to “negotiate.” They likely don’t believe that what he said is practically impossible. That he is likely just saying such a thing to rile up the “base.” That it’s just campaign-trail grist.

The 22nd Amendment that limits presidents to two elected terms is rock solid. It won’t be tinkered with by a goofball who thinks he is above the law, which I should add got him in trouble with the House that impeached him.

I just have to circle back to the most fundamental question of the moment: How can we allow a president who makes these kinds of ridiculous assertions to stay anywhere near the White House?

Get him outta there!

political news

Why not a maximum age for POTUS?

Garland, Texas, resident Cynthia Stock poses an interesting question today in a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News.

She notes that we have a minimum age for U.S. senators (30 years); she doesn’t mention that you have to be at least 25 years of age to run for the U.S. House and 35 to run for president.

Stock wants to know why we don’t impose a maximum age for presidential candidates. Hmm. Let me think. Does she have a couple of senior citizens in mind, such as 77-year-old Sen. Bernie Sanders (who’s running for the Democratic nomination) and former VP Joe Biden (who might run for POTUS in 2020)?

The nation needs fresh ideas, fresh vision, fresh leadership, she writes. I wonder if “fresh” is code for “young.”

That’s not a half-bad notion, the more I think about it.

I oppose term limits for members of Congress. I suppose you could take that argument even farther by repealing the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that limits presidents to two elected terms; perhaps we could replace it with another amendment that places upper-end age limits on presidential candidates. Or would that amount to “age discrimination”? I’ll have to think about that.

Stock, though, makes another good point. She notes how the presidency has aged so many of its officeholders. President Franklin Roosevelt was not even 65 years of age when he died in April 1945 of a cerebral hemorrhage; same for President Johnson when he died in January 1973. The presidency took savage tolls on both those wartime presidents.

They were not old men when they died. The office made them much older than their years on Earth.

I’m not endorsing what Ms. Stock has proposed. I just thought it to be worth noting.

national news

Wondering if term limits will return to debate stage

With all the hoo-hah in Washington about the battle of ideologies — conservative vs. liberal — I am wondering about the fate of the debate over term limits.

In 1994, Republicans led by U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, campaigned successfully on the Contract With America platform that included a silly proposition: to limit the terms of members of Congress.

Voters seemed to buy into the notion that we ought to place mandatory limits on the time House members and senators can serve. After all, we limit the president to two elected terms, thanks to the 22nd Amendment. Why not demand the same thing of Congress members?

Well, the idea hasn’t gone anywhere. It requires an amendment to the Constitution. Referring an amendment to the states for their ratification requires a two-thirds vote in both congressional chambers. Term limits proposals haven’t made the grade.

Term limits is primarily a Republican-led initiative. Democrats have dug in against the idea, saying correctly that “we already have term limits. We call them ‘elections.'”

I don’t favor mandatory limits. Indeed, there has been a significant churn of House members and senators already without the mandated limits. The new Congress comprises roughly a membership that includes roughly 25 percent of first-time officeholders. That ain’t bad, man!

Sure, there are deep-rooted incumbents from both parties who make legislating their life’s calling. However, I only can refer back to their constituents: If these lawmakers are doing a poor job, their constituents have it within their power to boot them out; if the constituents are happy with their lawmakers’ performance, they are entitled to keep them on the job.

Of course, we don’t hear much from the nation’s Republican in Chief, the president of the United States, about term limits. He’s too busy “making America great again” and fighting for The Wall. He can’t be bothered with anything as mundane and pedestrian as establishing limits for the amount of time lawmakers can serve.

But where are the GOP fire starters? Have they lost their interest? Or their nerve?

I’m fine with the idea remaining dormant. Just wondering whether it’s died a much-needed death.