Re: [OT] Trump's third term

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