Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Trump's third term
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:20:25 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <vsefc8$lcpt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vscr7o$2ss4p$2@dont-email.me> <vse44s$2ss4p$4@dont-email.me> <vsea2m$h283$1@dont-email.me> <vsecaq$2ss4p$6@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:20:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e1ee2db0d3f1bfd3febbebc4ffd548fc";
	logging-data="701245"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jVSCFZf7I8W+g72ri908xhs7Y0TL75W8="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WtE+WaZskOihTy0bO1gDNx5LJYc=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2025-03-31 10:49 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>2025-03-30 11:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>2025-03-30 10:05 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>I see that Trump has mused about running for a third term. This CBC
>>>>>>>article explains why that couldn't happen and suggests that this puts an
>>>>>>>end to the discussion.

>>>>>>>https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-third-term-president-constitutional-1.7497480

>>>>>>>For some strange reason - ignorance, I expect - they complete
>>>>>>>ignore a perfectly legal way to get Trump a third term: amend
>>>>>>>the 22nd amendment to increase the number of terms or repeal that
>>>>>>>amendment altogether.

>>>>>>>If I remember correctly, he'd need to get the approval of 3/4 of
>>>>>>>the states and 2/3 of both chambers of Congress to agree and they'd
>>>>>>>only have a set number of years to do it but if Trump really is
>>>>>>>as popular as he thinks he is, that should be quite possible.

>>>>>>The set number of years was a characteristic of specific amendments
>>>>>>proposed in Congress but not others. It's not clear if that's
>>>>>>constitutional.

>>>>>Fair enough. I was remembering the ERA which *almost* passed but fell
>>>>>slightly short. As I recall, they gave it an extra few years but it
>>>>>still fell short.

>>>>ERA may have passed as additional state legislatures voted in favor
>>>>after the expiration.

>>>>>>Good luck to Trump on his quest to become dictator.

>>>>>Was FDR a dictator when he ran for his third and fourth terms?

>>>>There are historians who have argued that FDR was part of the pre-WWII
>>>>trend of countries that had been democracies turning toward autocracy.
>>>>Also, FDR never told the voters that he was way too sick to be president
>>>>when he ran for that fourth term.

>>>Roosevelt running for a fourth term when he was at death's door was, of
>>>course, morally wrong. So was Wilson failing to resign when he was
>>>massively incapacitated for many months during WWI and simply let his
>>>wife run things. Unfortunately, both acts were perfectly legal.

>>I don't think so. In Wilson's case, it's known that there were times he
>>wasn't making decisions. His wife and personal physician were acting on
>>his behalf. That's illegal.

>Did his wife and doctor consult Wilson about the various issues and 
>merely pass on his decisions or was he completely uncommunicative so 
>that they just took their best guesses about what he would have done had 
>he been fit? I don't have a real problem with the former but the latter 
>is obviously not cool. Simply passing on decisions he made has very 
>little to distinguish itself from him passing a handwritten message to 
>an underling.

It's known that Wilson was so sick that there were times he was
incapable of making decisions. This was hidden from pretty much
everybody.

>>If the public had known in either case, we'd
>>have gotten the 25th Amendment earlier than Eisenhower's heart attack.
>>This was clearly a scenario the Founding Fathers hadn't anticipated,
>>that a president could become incapacitated for an indefinite period of
>>time without dying and there should have been a provision for temporary
>>transfer of power.

>It's hard to blame them though. You simply can't anticipate every 
>possible situation years - or centuries - in advance. Now, if a similar 
>situation had happened within living memory of the Founding Fathers, 
>they might have chosen to write laws to handle it.

>Oh wait, there *was* a precedent that would have been known to them! 
>King George III was effectively incapacitated for many years with what 
>was believed now to be either porphyria or bipolar disorder. There was a 
>play and movie about it: The Madness of King George. The Wikipedia 
>article about George III isn't clear on when he bouts of madness began 
>but they finally became so severe that his son served in his stead as 
>Prince Regent in 1810 and finally replaced him permanently in 1820. That 
>was obviously too late for the first draft of the Constitution but 
>*could* have served as inspiration for an Amendment to deal with 
>comparable problems in America.

If you hadn't mentioned that, then I would have, but I don't understand
how well known this was by the Founding Fathers.

>. . .