A Republican group is hoping to rally support to change the Constitution to allow President Donald Trump to seek a third term.

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1951 following the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected to four terms between 1933 and 1945. The two-term limit for presidents was introduced by Congress to prevent potential abuses of power.

  • petrescatraian@libranet.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    @jarfil Not a single sane democracy allows for more than two terms (usually 8-10 years in total) during peace time. Russia is a special case and is undemocratic nevertheless. Trump getting a third term likely opens the road for the demise of the American democracy.

      • alansuspect@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        22 hours ago

        The difference is countries that vote for parties vs voting for an individual. I don’t know why anyone would think one person would have the best interests of the country at heart.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Nor Canada.

        Does any commonwealth country have that sort of term limits?

        • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Not that I’m aware of? Technically the king/queen is head of state and that term is until death, can’t get much longer than that.

      • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Sanity doesn’t create our system,

        If the PM survives the voters, their Party dances them out, if the PM survives the Party, the PM resigns to spend more time with “family”, if the PM survives the “family”, the GG… Kerrtails.

        The PMs power at any given time can seem a bit Schroedinger’s cat.

        • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          It probably depends how much fractional power and money is behind the PM. John Howard was PM for a decade after all.

      • petrescatraian@libranet.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        @spiffmeister hah! Are you able to be president for more than 2 consecutive terms in peace time?

        (I heard France doesn’t prohibit more than two terms either, but they have to not be consecutive)

        • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Well Australia doesn’t have a president. But in theory there’s nothing stopping someone from being prime minister for infinite time, provided their party doesn’t stab them in the back or their party doesn’t lose the election.

          • petrescatraian@libranet.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            @spiffmeister oh, I see. Well, technically, a prime-minister is a different thing, so you’re right in this regard, but yeah, practically no one has been a prime minister for very long. It’s a bit of a complicated thing

            • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Agreed that PM is different, they don’t weild the same power the US president does. But in terms of time, Robert Menzies was pm for a total of 18 years and John Howard was pm for 12, so you can be for a long time. Politics have just been much less stable in the last 20 years.