1mo ago

Constitutional amendment to allow Trump third term introduced in the House

www.cnbc.com Constitutional amendment to allow Trump third term introduced in the House

President Donald Trump has hinted at the possibility of somehow serving a third term in office.

A Republican House member introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow President Donald Trump — and any other future president — to be elected to serve a third term.

This is not my Life @lemm.ee

irreticent @lemmy.world

1mo ago

Constitutional amendment to allow Trump third term introduced in the House

www.cnbc.com /2025/01/23/trump-third-term-amendment-constitution-ogles.html

45 11

politics @lemmy.world

vegeta @lemmy.world

1mo ago

Constitutional amendment to allow Trump third term introduced in the House

www.cnbc.com /2025/01/23/trump-third-term-amendment-constitution-ogles.html

602 254

You're viewing a single thread.

78 comments

Are term limits conceptually good? Aren't they just arbitrary?
- It wasn't until FDR that we made term limits part of the constitution. He served 4 terms that eventually led to the New Deal. The new deal was devastating for the capitalist class at the time, and they have been working tirelessly to undo the effects since. However, I, personally, believe the implementation of this into the constitution was to prevent another series of presidencies as impactful as FDR. This isn't the first time the legislature attempted to repeal it, either. They tried and failed in 1956. Truman described the law as "Stupid" and one of the worst amendments of the Constitution, next to the Prohibition amendment. Regan also spoke out against it, as well as Bill Clinton. Like many others have pointed out, many western democracies do not have term limits. I think it's also worth pointing out that many western democracies also do not directly elect their president, but instead their president is elected by the party (much like China does, and how the USSR did, and many other AES states.)
  
  Among socialists, I think we all agree FDR was a capitalist through and through who understood the situation America was in. He used the New Deal to save capitalism from being overthrown by the very real threat of socialist revolution. The New Deal acted as a release valve.
  It's something the generation of New Deal Democrats understood (such as LBJ's Great Society program) current day democrats don't. Today's democrats are so high on their own supply of bullshit Austrian economics they don't realize the consequences of austerity.
  
  Yeah, that's good additional context. I think the Republicans at the time, wrapped up in growing anti-communist sentiment, viewed the New Deal as an approach to socialism (by their shallow or non-existent understanding of socialism) that could have only been achieved through FDRs extended presidency. In collaboration with democrats, they passed the 22nd amendment, mostly out of fear that somehow the American people really would "Vote in socialism", or to at least, not appear to be a dictatorship in the same way they viewed the political process of the USSR. The next 50 years would see the rise of the Think Tank, specifically the Federalist Society, and these institutions abilities to carry forward policy agendas despite a limited term. I'm not sure what would really change if they added a 3rd possible term to the presidency, considering so much policy is now constructed by these think tanks.
- IMO I think they aren't any good in a vacuum but I do think it's a good thing that the US specifically has them for the president. If they weren't there, a determined ghoul administration would be much more effective at just running the gauntlet for decades (the eternal Obama). Currently the "deep state" fulfills that function and there's a limit to how much they can do domestically, with the inherent limit that they have to act behind the scenes.
  
  But even without term limits the president would have to spend just as much time focusing on campaigning, right? You would still have the same amount of elections. The president would still spend just as much time ruling the empire as now.
  
  Yeah, I meant it in the sense that you wouldn't get the rigamarole we're seeing right now where one guy comes in, does a few things, the next guy comes in and undoes all of them. One president ruling for decades means they can get a coherent program going, which is bad for the rest of the world.
  
  Okay, I think I understand. Trump wants to fuck with Biden's legacy who wants to fuck with Trump's legacy who wants to fuck with Obama's legacy and so forth. Term limits are good in the US because fuck the US.
  
  The more time a president has in office, the more they can "consolidate power", which when translated from liberal actually means that they have the time and popularity to take control of the country away from state bureaucracies and entrenched civil society institutions (both of which are the key organs through which the capitalist class's excercises it's power).
  While trump and the like have no intention of doing anything good with a third term, the reason why so many capitalists/liberals are terrified of fascism/Communism is that these transfer political power from the traditional organs of bourgeois power to the state.
  Of course the fascists only do this in order to unify the bourgeoise and eliminate competition amongst them (emergency mode of capitalism).
  In this context, term limits in any society come with a big asterisk. Such measures (including stuff like constitutional rights, which in practice only protect the rich) are basically liberal society's way of operating in normal times. Their degradation across the entire west signals an era of great change. The bourgeoise are gearing up and hardening themselves for class war on a scale never seen before.
  
  Issue is, there's been a long time since anyone with an ideology even close to rejecting imperialism has gotten close to winning an election at the federal level. Maybe there's some danger of a new FDR that the technocrats fear, but I think a new FDR would mostly represent revitalizing the mechanisms of exploitation, giving them a new coat of paint. There are capitalists that oppose this out of their short sightedness, but overall it's not a difference in class perspective, it's not a change that would move the proles closer to political power.
  After all, we believe that this bourgeois state has to be thoroughly dismantled one way or the other before a new socialist state can be built, no? We shouldn't expect them to make winning moves on our behalf.
  
  This is basically my take as well. Its one of those imperfect solutions to a clearly busted system. If the US was a healthy functioning democracy term limits would probably be bad but between gerrymandering, legalized bribery, and corporate media consolidation about the only reason we don't have presidents for life at this point is the term limit.
- There's arguments to be made for and against. On one hand, no term limits means someone can focus on governing, rather than constantly running a campaign. Incumbents often have to do less work in this regard because they're already established. On the other, it means it's harder to remove incumbents. You see this a lot in local elections where people often run unopposed. They get elected anyway, regardless of their performance.
  Some places will just make the terms longer (such as 10 years or more) so a candidate will want to leave office, yet still have time to accomplish what they want. One of the US's problems is we're on four year cycles for president and 2 year cycles for congress. This is especially deceptive because of the delay between laws passing and the effects of those laws being seen. The economy is one example. We don't see the consequences of a president's economic policies until nearly the end of their second term due to turnover, people moving, companies setting up 5 year plans, stock dividends, etc.
  
  So term limits make a lot of sense in ineffectual systems of government that are more focused on the spectacle of campaigning and elections than the actual governing? I can definitely see how political apathy would lead to incumbents running unopposed but I'm not sure I understand how a lack of term limits automatically benefit the incumbent, other in the fact that they literally have to step down once they reach the limit.
  
  In addition to what Sodium said, incumbents have resources from their office to use, plus they don't have to deal with bureaucracies other candidates have to go through.
  For example, an incumbent meets on a regular basis with the press as part of their position. When campaign season rolls around, they already know the media organizations used to spread their platform. A newer candidate doesn't have access to those same channels. Then stuff like Bush raising "terrorism possibilities" during his 2004 campaign against John Kerry, something Kerry couldn't do.
  As for the bureaucratic portion, a newer candidate might have to do something like collect signatures in order to run. Their campaign has to spend time going door to door before they're even on the ballot, just to get on the ballot. The incumbent, however, is automatically on the ballot so their campaign can focus on things like donors. You see this a lot in Congress with party leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. In order to primary Pelosi, a person has to go through a lengthy process in her district to even attempt removing her, then actually running a campaign to remove her. Meanwhile, Pelosi gets to talk to people she's met through her office, stacking up on donors, endorsements, favors, etc.
  
  I’m not sure I understand how a lack of term limits automatically benefit the incumbent, other in the fact that they literally have to step down once they reach the limit.
  The incumbent has a track record whole the challengers are unknown. If the incumbent is doing fine, they have a huge advantage in that people know they will keep things chugging along roughly the same.
- The PRC doesn’t have term limits neither do several western countries.
  
  I don't think any party has ever had term limits imposed on it's leadership. I remember when the PRC removed their term limits on the (effectively ceremonial) position of president and the US media apparatus freaked out. The media apparatus in other western countries where term limits aren't a thing had to invite specialist commentators to explain why a lack of term limits in China means dictatorship but it's all fine in Europe.
  
  Is not having term limits bad? Please consult this handy chart:
  
  this is not even my final form
- Consider term limits. The US Constitution was amended to enforce term limits in direct response to FDR’s popular 12-year presidency (he died in office, going on for 16). As a policy, it is self-evidently quite anti-democratic (robbing the people of a choice), but nevertheless it has been conceptually naturalized to the extent that the 2019 coup against Evo Morales was premised explicitly on the idea that repeated popular electoral victories constituted a form of dictatorship. If rotation was important to avoid corruption or complacency, corporations and supreme courts would institute term limits too. Term limits ensure that in the miraculous scenario that a scrupulous, charismatic, and intelligent individual becomes a rebellious political executive, they won’t be in power long enough to meaningfully challenge the entrenched power of corporate vehicles manned by CEOs with decades of experience. Wolfgang Schäuble, a powerful advocate of austerity policy in Europe, succinctly summarized the extent to which electoral democracy is subordinate: “Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy.” One Party States and Democratic Centralism are not the result of lack of sophistication or cronyism, they are a proven bulwark that acknowledges that political power will often need to be exerted against the will of Capital, and so the wielders of said power must necessarily undergo a much more serious vetting process than a popularity contest.
  from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/

78 comments