By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Steve Bannon’s suggestion that Donald Trump could serve a third term in 2028 is a deliberate provocation, ignoring the clear language of the 22nd Amendment, which explicitly limits presidents to two terms, regardless of whether they are consecutive. While hypothetical scenarios involving the vice presidency or speakership could be explored, they contradict the amendment’s spirit and would likely necessitate Supreme Court intervention. Ultimately, Bannon’s claim is demonstrably false and designed to incite his base while generating controversy.
Read the original article here
Just to be clear, no, Donald Trump cannot be elected President again. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution explicitly limits a person to two terms in office. This is a fundamental principle of American democracy, designed to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual for an extended period. It’s a seemingly straightforward rule, yet the current political climate introduces unsettling uncertainties.
The belief that established rules and legal processes will automatically prevent Trump from attempting a third term is naive. We’ve witnessed a disregard for established norms and precedents throughout his political career, culminating in events like the January 6th insurrection. The idea that the Constitution is self-enforcing is a fallacy; laws require active enforcement and upholding. Past events demonstrate a clear pattern of challenging, undermining, and even ignoring legal constraints, making the 22nd Amendment’s protection less certain than it might appear.
The potential for legal maneuvering and Supreme Court intervention further complicates the situation. The current Supreme Court’s composition raises questions about its commitment to established legal principles and constitutional norms. Past decisions have shown a willingness to interpret the law in ways that benefit the political right, raising concerns that the 22nd Amendment could be subjected to similar reinterpretations or even outright dismissal. The court’s handling of previous challenges to Trump’s actions offers little reassurance.
Furthermore, the possibility of Congress playing a role in the situation cannot be ignored. The Constitution allows for scenarios where Congress assumes a significant role in resolving election disputes, theoretically opening up a pathway for Trump to attain power even if he violates the 22nd Amendment. This, combined with the Republican party’s apparent willingness to overlook or even support Trump’s transgressions, makes a potential challenge to the 22nd Amendment more probable than reassuring.
The idea that the 22nd Amendment is the ultimate safeguard is dangerously simplistic. The mere existence of the amendment does not automatically prevent its circumvention. The lack of robust institutional checks and balances, coupled with the political polarization and erosion of democratic norms, presents a real threat to the enforcement of this crucial constitutional provision. The possibility of a challenge to its validity, based on specious arguments that are highly unlikely to succeed, is unfortunately still within the realm of possibility.
Ignoring the potential for manipulation of legal processes is irresponsible. While the amendment clearly states that no person can be elected president more than twice, this does not preclude someone from running. Preventing a run would require legal action, and the success of such action is far from guaranteed. Even if the courts bar a Trump candidacy, ensuring compliance requires anticipating and preventing any attempts to undermine the resulting election.
The current climate fosters an atmosphere where laws and norms are easily dismissed by those in power. This is not a hypothetical concern, but a clear and present danger. Past actions clearly show a disregard for democratic processes and established legal frameworks. Focusing solely on the 22nd Amendment without considering the broader context of weakened democratic institutions and a willingness to subvert the rule of law would be unwise and potentially harmful.
The belief that “rules still matter” is increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of evidence to the contrary. To assume that established legal and political processes will automatically prevent Trump from seeking, or achieving, a third term ignores the realities of the current political situation. To think otherwise is to underestimate the extent to which norms and established rules have already been eroded and the potential for further erosion.
The focus should not solely be on whether Trump can be elected again, but on how to prevent his attempts to seize power through any means, legal or otherwise. The existing legal mechanisms are not sufficient guarantees, considering the current state of the American political system. The challenge lies not only in interpreting and enforcing the 22nd Amendment, but also in strengthening the institutions and processes that uphold democratic governance. It requires a recognition that we are in uncharted territory and that maintaining democracy demands far more vigilance than simply relying on existing rules.