By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following President Trump’s suggestive comments about a potential 2028 run, Representative Andy Ogles introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution, enabling Trump to seek a third term. This proposal, while unlikely to pass, highlights the increasingly sycophantic nature of some Republicans, eager to appease the former president. The amendment’s specific language, barring presidents elected for two consecutive terms from a third run, exposes its partisan intent. This incident is part of a larger trend; Republicans are frequently introducing legislation mirroring Trump’s pronouncements, regardless of feasibility, to demonstrate loyalty and gain favor. This behavior points to a concerning normalization of personality-driven politics within the GOP.
Read the original article here
A new bill proposed by a Republican lawmaker aims to amend the US Constitution, allowing former President Donald Trump to run for a third term while simultaneously barring former President Barack Obama from doing the same. This highly controversial proposal has ignited a firestorm of debate, highlighting the deep partisan divisions within the American political landscape.
The bill’s central focus is on creating an exception to the existing two-term limit for presidents. However, instead of a simple removal of the term limit, the proposed amendment cleverly incorporates a clause specifically preventing anyone who has served two consecutive terms from seeking a third. This effectively targets Obama, who served two consecutive terms, while leaving the door open for Trump, whose terms were non-consecutive.
The blatant hypocrisy of such a maneuver is hard to ignore. The same individuals who vehemently criticized President Biden’s age and fitness for office now seem willing to overlook the considerable health challenges and advanced age that President Trump would face in a third term. The idea of an 82-year-old Trump starting another term, potentially reaching 86 by the end, raises serious questions about his capability and stamina.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment directly contradicts the spirit of the 22nd Amendment, which established the two-term limit to prevent any one person from holding the office for too long. Circumventing this crucial check on executive power through a targeted amendment showcases a troubling disregard for established constitutional norms.
Many commentators have pointed out the extremely low likelihood of this bill ever becoming law. Amending the Constitution requires a supermajority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Given the significant opposition from Democrats and even some within the Republican party, it seems highly unlikely that this particular amendment will ever garner the necessary support.
The bill is widely seen as nothing more than a transparent attempt to appease a portion of the Republican base intensely loyal to Donald Trump. The focus is less on the practical implications of a third term for any president and more on the perceived political advantage it offers Trump. Many believe it serves primarily as a symbolic gesture of loyalty and support rather than a serious attempt to alter the nation’s fundamental laws.
The reaction across the political spectrum has been sharp and decisive. Democrats have expressed outrage, calling the bill undemocratic and a blatant attempt to subvert established constitutional rules. Even some Republicans are voicing their opposition, viewing the amendment as unnecessary and potentially damaging to the Republican party’s image. Many conservative voices consider it a terrible idea and suggest that the effort is a distraction from more pressing issues facing the nation.
The bill’s narrow focus, explicitly excluding Obama while favoring Trump, only underscores its partisan nature. It seems designed to cater to those who view the former president as essential and indispensable to their political agenda.
The overwhelming sentiment surrounding the proposed amendment is one of disbelief and concern. Many consider it a blatant attempt to manipulate the system for the benefit of one individual, disregarding the fundamental principles of American democracy.
The underlying narrative of the proposal also reveals a deep-seated fear and resentment towards Obama, and the bill’s very existence serves as a powerful testament to the enduring legacy of polarization in American politics.
Beyond the immediate political ramifications, the very notion of a third term for any president raises fundamental questions about power, democracy, and the integrity of the electoral system. While this specific bill is unlikely to pass, the fact that it was even proposed highlights the growing fragility of established norms and the increasingly personalized nature of partisan politics. The focus on a particular individual, rather than on broader constitutional principles, further exacerbates these concerns.
In conclusion, the proposed GOP bill is a highly divisive and controversial piece of legislation that has sparked widespread debate. It highlights the deep partisan divides within American politics and raises serious concerns about the future of constitutional norms and the integrity of the electoral process. Despite its extremely low likelihood of passage, the bill’s existence itself is a telling commentary on the current state of American politics.