Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Trump's third term
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:34:36 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <vsejnc$qno7$4@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:34:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5d816eb7975b9cfa69f8ac158de8bbdd";
	logging-data="876295"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Kd6WfSlohulWDO7ANRAqb"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Jj4COOGt+00UnC/3F4XDunYbyUM=
Bytes: 6482

On Mar 31, 2025 at 8:28:25 AM PDT, "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.
> 
>>  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.
> 
>>  It's also bizarre that there was no provision to fill of office of Vice
>>  President.
>> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
>>>  Maybe the laws - or even the Constitution - should be amended to force
>>>  every Presidential and VP candidate to pass a thorough medical (and
>>>  mental) exam before they can be put on a Presidential/VP ballot and also
>>>  pass an annual physical.
>>  
>>  The voters too? When these things are known, they may ignore the
>>  problem.
>>  
>>>  . . .
> 
> Tests for voters have always been controversial and difficult. We can't 
> seem to agree on much in the way of minimum qualifications beyond age 
> and citizenship and even those are contested from some quarters. Other 
> limits, like education, property ownership, or other things always seem 
> to get struck down as unreasonable limitations.

I'm a big proponent of a basic political awareness test before being allowed
to vote!