Politics

No, Mike. Donald Doesn’t Get a Third Term – Conor Kelly

Taken from Clipart Library

I n a rather peculiar display of sycophantic nonsense, former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, posted on twitter that he was going to be on Fox News. Why, you may ask? Well, apparently he got the brilliant idea to argue on Fox that Trump was entitled to a third term at the Presidency. His argument, as usual, holds very little credibility or reason to it, but unfortunately, it is a point that some conservatives believe to be true. Mike Huckabee certainly has taken to heart the nonsensical position, as he has posted on his twitter about yesterday as well, parading himself around as the campaign advisor to the 2024 campaign for Trump.

While some may disregard this as basic trolling, I am not so certain. This isn’t the first time this has come up, as Trump has mused several times over the idea of a third term, sometimes with seemingly serious intent. Indeed, the idea has been floated around by more fringe elements of the right such as famous Pizzagate conspiracy theorist, Jack Posobiec,who made the erroneous claim that a failed impeachment inquiry nullifies a term to the Presidency. This completely ridiculous and holds no basis in constitutional law, nor does fall into line with what the constitution actually says.

These public displays by Jack and others seem to indicate that some Trumpists hope to normalize the idea of three terms for a president, disregarding the Washingtonian ideal of letting power go. This flies in the face of the constitution and seek only to perpetuate the supposed “greatness” of the Trump administration, doing nothing good for our country. Under the 22nd Amendment, it is unlawful for a president to seek out a third term.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. –22nd Amendment, Section 1.

As Tom Embury-Dennis, a contributor for the Independent has noted, normalizing the idea of a third term or perhaps even a fourth term is something that could very well be Trump’s approach, assuming he wins a second term at all. Indeed, some are actively repeating the argument in respectable newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, where William Mattox made the argument that Trump had been stymied in his presidency because of the Impeachment inquiry and thus, was entitled to an extension. Though, he argues such a proposal would require an amendment to the constitution, which is unlikely.

Such an idea would inevitably result in faux impeachment proceedings in order to prop up the desired president to an additional term, if the basis for the additional term was a failed impeachment, that is. Furthermore, despite Trump’s complaints about impeachment obstructing his Presidency, Trump has done rather well at pursuing his agenda, as he has appointed his 50th Judge to the 9th circuit and the Democratic-controlled House has passed a $739 billion bill that creates the Space Force Trump has been calling for. Not to mention the fact that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi still conducts official business with the President and made a deal with him in the form of the USMCA.

Impeachment is remarkably rare as it is, there is no further need to impede Congress’ enumerated powers as they have almost never used the power of Impeachment against the president. Out of the 45 Presidents we have had, only two have faced an Impeachment vote that has gone to the Senate and one left office before the vote in the House could be held, Nixon. It is particularly loathsome that some commentators, both fringe or otherwise, are actively pursuing this line of argumentation and thought when the current House has yet to finish their vote in the first place. I would also say that such an argument would require that the current impeachment inquiry is baseless, which it is not.

As I have noted in the past, Trump could be theoretically be impeached for his violation of the emoluments clause, which is explicit in the constitution. But the House didn’t take such a blunt and direct approach. Indeed, Speaker Pelosi had, for a time, opposed Impeachment as the “easy way out.” It was only after the Ukraine scandal that she changed her tune, officially announcing impeachment on that basis. If the Democrats were so inclined to pursue impeachment with haste, they would have done so sooner, let’s not kid ourselves here.

Mike Huckabee and others spouting his nonsense have disregarded the constitution for their own political benefit and self-importance, entertaining delusions of grandeur for their boss in the White House. It is harmful, it is nakedly partisan and the American people should not stand for it.


Source link
Tags
Show More
Back to top button

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Close