Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Trump's third term
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 12:55:12 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <vsehdh$2ss4p$8@dont-email.me>
References: <vscr7o$2ss4p$2@dont-email.me> <vse44s$2ss4p$4@dont-email.me>
 <vsea2m$h283$1@dont-email.me> <vsecaq$2ss4p$6@dont-email.me>
 <vsefc8$lcpt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:55:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b70dda059f1acd727e177a03fd43bda7";
	logging-data="3043481"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YfZZOzMn+yZPPidlKJkrdV8MqzoeOWhI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i4xpAR9Gw0RZlzs1GMiwzdey/fs=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-CA
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250331-4, 3/31/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vsefc8$lcpt$1@dont-email.me>

On 2025-03-31 12:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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.
> 
That's clearly wrong then in a moral sense. Was it illegal though? Isn't 
it the American standard that everything's legal unless it is codified 
in law that it is illegal? Was there an actual law against his wife and 
doctor making decisions on his behalf?

>>> 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.
> 

Nor do I. But I have to imagine *something* was known of this back in 
the day. Of course we didn't have TV, radio or internet back then and 
even newspapers were probably out of reach to most people due to the 
expense and widespread illiteracy. But there must have been courtiers 
and other observers who could see that something was up and notice that 
the King hadn't been seen in public in quite some time - or he had been 
seen but had been raving like a loony - so surely this would get out via 
the gossip mill at the very least. But Britain and America weren't on 
great terms in those days so maybe the gossip didn't make it to this 
side of the pond. (Mind you, the French surely kept an eye on Britain 
and they were on good terms with America so I might expect them to leak 
the info to American diplomats or military attaches.)

George III can't have been the only world leader who was unable to rule 
while he was still alive. Every king, queen, emperor, tsar etc. 
eventually gets old or sick and loses their faculties making it 
impossible for them to rule normally. Every country would have to 
confront this from time to time. The more I think about it, the more 
surprised I am that the Founding Fathers *didn't* take this into 
account. Could they really have assumed that every President/VP would 
not run unless they were healthy and would resign immediately if they 
became unhealthy?

Anyway, what do you think of my proposed Amendment mandating every 
Presidential/VP candidate having a full physical and mental evaluation 
before being allowed to stand and then having annual re-exams while in 
office? What objection could anyone possibly have to that? I would think 
most voters would be happy to know that their candidates were at least 
physically and mentally fit.

-- 
Rhino