By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump’s playful promotion of “Trump 2028” merchandise raises questions about the 22nd Amendment’s constitutionality, particularly given the lack of term limits for other federal offices. The amendment, passed after FDR’s four terms, restricts presidents to two terms. The segment suggests this restriction warrants further examination, citing the lack of similar limits in other branches as a potential constitutional flaw. This discussion frames Trump’s actions as potentially highlighting a broader issue of presidential term limits, not as a serious campaign announcement.
Read the original article here
Newsmax’s Greg Kelly recently posited the idea that the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms, might be unconstitutional. This statement immediately sparks a multitude of reactions, ranging from disbelief to outrage, highlighting the fundamental misunderstanding of how constitutional amendments function.
The very notion that a ratified amendment to the Constitution could somehow be deemed unconstitutional within the framework of that same Constitution is inherently paradoxical. Amendments, once properly ratified through the established processes, become integral parts of the Constitution itself, not separate entities subject to arbitrary invalidation. This isn’t a matter of interpretation; it’s a matter of basic constitutional mechanics.
The argument seems to stem from a belief that the 22nd Amendment itself restricts the power of the people or serves some sort of hidden agenda. This perception likely arises from a viewpoint that sees any limitation on presidential power as an infringement on popular sovereignty or, alternatively, a manipulation by unnamed shadowy forces. The suggestion of a “deep state” controlling the presidency through term limits represents a significant leap of logic and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how constitutional amendments are proposed, debated, and ratified by the people through their elected representatives.
It’s worth considering that the historical context surrounding the 22nd Amendment reveals a concern about concentrating power in one individual for too long. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms in office prompted debate about the potential for excessive influence and the risk of a presidency becoming detached from the evolving needs of the electorate. The amendment was a direct response to those concerns, representing a deliberate decision to balance executive power with democratic principles. Thus, characterizing the amendment as “unconstitutional” disregards this historical significance and the very democratic process which led to its adoption.
Such a statement not only demonstrates a flawed understanding of constitutional law but also reveals a problematic approach to democratic processes. It suggests that certain individuals might believe themselves entitled to disregard established rules and norms if those rules conflict with their desired outcome. This is a dangerous precedent, undermining the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the legitimacy of the democratic system itself.
Furthermore, there’s a suggestion that the 22nd Amendment might somehow be selectively applied, with implications of favoring one political party over another. The implication is that term limits are a partisan tool rather than a measure aimed at limiting executive power. This kind of thinking serves only to deepen the existing political divisions and erode public trust in both democratic institutions and the integrity of the electoral process. By proposing this idea, the speaker inadvertently exposes a deeper concern: the acceptance of discarding rules simply because they don’t align with a preferred outcome, be it political or otherwise.
The underlying argument seems to disregard the checks and balances integral to the American governmental system. The Constitution’s structure is designed to prevent the concentration of excessive power in any one branch. Term limits, far from being an impediment to effective governance, help uphold this principle, fostering accountability and encouraging a wider range of perspectives in leadership. To portray term limits as a conspiratorial effort against a particular individual or political party is not just inaccurate but also actively damaging to the proper functioning of a democratic republic.
Ultimately, the statement that the 22nd Amendment might be unconstitutional is a profound misreading of the Constitution’s structure and function. It demonstrates a lack of understanding about the fundamental principles of American governance, the process of constitutional amendment, and the historical context surrounding the 22nd Amendment itself. Beyond the legal inaccuracies, the underlying implications of such a statement suggest a troubling disregard for democratic norms and the rule of law.