Revolt on the Right: Will Trump's actions erode his support?

Even conceding all of the author's points, it is difficult to tell the long-term effects of his policies until a long term has elapsed.
I am extremely pleased about finally limiting illegal immigration because I do not think the US can stand the effects of uncontrolled immigration on the US socially or fiscally.
I am extremely pleased with efforts to reign in federal spending because I believe $36,000,000,000.000 in debt will kill the US stone dead. William Symmes in the Massachusetts Convention of 1788 said, "A nation cannot, perhaps, do a more politic thing than to supply the purse of its sovereign with that parsimony which results from a sense of the labor it costs." DOGE has shown ad nauseum that the federal government had been spending the peoples' tax dollars with scant regard for how much it had cost the people paying those taxes. It seems more likely that the appropriators said to themselves, "Let's go ahead and spend money on this. No one will ever find out about this."

Trump is going to keep his tariff policies, for better of worse, I suspect we are going to have to see what happens. I'm not sure Trump is going to change course. He might, but I doubt it.

And if there is a "revolt on the right" over tariffs, I'm not sure how that revolt will manifest itself. Trump is president until 2029. Mid-term elections? I suppose, but the party in power normally loses, sometimes substantially, in the mid-terms.
 
It won't matter.

Trump will never face the voters again anyway.

(We're now on the tenth year of "what will separate Trump from his base" when the answer should already be known as, "Nothing").

OTOH - it's gonna be funny to watch President AOC in the spring of 2029 with Democratic majorities in both houses use the very same tactics Trump and his party have used to ram through trillions of dollars to spend on high speed rail, climate change, and forced gay marriages for straight people.

Everyone will suddenly flip sides again. The Ds whining incessantly right now about overreach will be all for it and say "what about Trump" and the Rs will say stuff like, "but Person X wasn't elected!"
 
I think the vulnerability Trump has on tariffs is a court challenge that tries to define them as a tax.

They clearly are, and are therefore under the purview of Congress, not an Executive Order.

Whether that would carry the day in court is another question entirely.

I'm for trying it. What's to lose?
 
It won't matter.

Trump will never face the voters again anyway.

That's an interesting question, selma. I think he's going to try, the 25th 22nd (thanks, Crimson 1967) Amendment notwithstanding.

My question is: Being Constitutionally ineligible to be elected, can he be barred from a spot on the ballot? Who decides who is eligible to be on the ballot? And what jurisdiction does that decision cover? National? State? Local?

I don't know. But I think we're all about to get a lesson in election law.
 
Last edited:
The 22nd says he can’t be elected a third time, it doesn’t say he can’t become president via some other method. So a Vance-Trump ticket would be legal as the 12th wouldn’t disqualify him.

The problem would be getting Vance to agree. If he resigns as soon as he is sworn in he would still be limited to getting elected one more time. You would also need a GOP House and Senate to approve a new VP for Trump in 2029 if they go this route.

Not a lawyer or constitutional expert but just how I read it. Perhaps the author of the 22nd didn’t want a twice elected president to serve again but maybe he should have written it differently.
 
I cannot figure out which is more insane:
1- that anyone thinks they can be POTUS for three terms, or
2- that boundaries are only now being pushed to such a degree that we have to question whether it's actually possible.
Steve Bannon I think got this trial balloon launched.
He's what 78 now? In 2029 he'll be 82. He does not live the healthiest lifestyle. I would be surprised if he made it. The Grim Reaper will probably render his verdict.

That said, maybe this qualifies as a "penumbra or emanation" of some other constitutional provision. Or maybe when the Constitution says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," what it really means is that someone can be elected more than twice. If you want something to be true and you believe you have the best of intentions, then it is true. See how much fun loose construction is? Just shop around for the right federal court and poof! He's eligible!

And I am not suggesting this will happen, just illustrating the dangers of straying too far from the intentions of the drafters and ratifiers of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting question, selma. I think he's going to try, the 25th Amendment notwithstanding.

My suspicion is that the most predictable reaction from leftists is a raging meltdown and that he's not doing anything beyond trolling. But given his past, it's not something I'm willing to bet on, either. Also, not to be obtuse, but I think it's the 22nd Amendment in this case on the two-term limit (unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying which wouldn't be the first time on my part with anyone).

My question is: Being Constitutionally ineligible to be elected, can he be barred from a spot on the ballot? Who decides who is eligible to be on the ballot? And what jurisdiction does that decision cover? National? State? Local?

I don't know. But I think we're all about to get a lesson in election law.

I think we do well to remember that Trump has provided us with a low level of lawyerly arguments the likes of John Eastman thinking the Vice President can overturn election results simply by rejecting them and several of them thinking they can go into court before his own appointed judges and merely assert "fraud happened, therefore you must rule in our favor."
 
The 22nd says he can’t be elected a third time, it doesn’t say he can’t become president via some other method. So a Vance-Trump ticket would be legal as the 12th wouldn’t disqualify him.

The problem would be getting Vance to agree. If he resigns as soon as he is sworn in he would still be limited to getting elected one more time. You would also need a GOP House and Senate to approve a new VP for Trump in 2029 if they go this route.

Not a lawyer or constitutional expert but just how I read it. Perhaps the author of the 22nd didn’t want a twice elected president to serve again but maybe he should have written it differently.

Thanks for the correction on the number of the amendment. It is the 22nd.

I pulled it up and it reads pretty simply. Nobody can be elected more than twice. And if you serve out part of someone else's term for more than two years, you can be elected only once.

But it concentrates on being elected, not serving. So yeah, there are probably ways around that. A Vance - Trump ticket could be one, with Vance resigning immediately after taking office. Vance would be signing away his future and whatever credibility he has left, but it could work.

Or Trump could just be the VP and give Vance his orders every day. Not sure his (Trump's) ego would allow that. Even if Trump isn't the VP, and even if he doesn't hold any elected office, he could still be the Wormtongue in the background whispering orders. That might even suit his purposes better as he'd be under fewer legal strictures.

George Wallace got around the state's prohibition against being elected governor three consecutive times by putting his wife up. I'm not sure even Trump would run Melania.

Regardless, one way or another, I do think he's going to try to get a third term -- assuming as TW points out, the Grim Reaper doesn't make that decision for him.
 
Last edited:
I cannot figure out which is more insane:
1- that anyone thinks they can be POTUS for three terms, or
2- that boundaries are only now being pushed to such a degree that we have to question whether it's actually possible.

Since the "original intent" of the drafters of the amendment was to limit a President to two terms with a caveat if one took over a partial term, this would seem to me to be a slam dunk for those "strict constructionist conservatives" on the court. I mean, it's OBVIOUS what was behind it.

Reagan joked about repealing it but let's be clear: he was OBVIOUSLY joking when he said it to the point that not even his harshest critics came unglued. He never seriously tried it nor did his party, and he spent most of his last year with one foot in DC and the other back home in California. On a more serious note, he DID say he favored abolishing the two-term limit NOT for himself but for those who followed.

Carter suggested at one time ONE six-year Presidential term that never went anywhere. His basic argument was that if you can't run for reelection, you stop all media stories when the President does something that cynically ask, "Is he doing this because it's right or for reelection?" However, I think that would have the effect of making a leader a lame duck the moment he was elected myself.

Bill Clinton favored a two CONSECUTIVE term limit where you could run for a third term after you sat out four years, saying longer life expectancy enabled the possibility.

(Btw - that article under Clinton brings out the best of his whining and blaming Republicans for his problems from day one. Yeah, entirely their fault you backed off your tax cut promise before taking office, right, Bill?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio
The 22nd says he can’t be elected a third time, it doesn’t say he can’t become president via some other method. So a Vance-Trump ticket would be legal as the 12th wouldn’t disqualify him.

We would do well to read up on how Putin has managed to stay in office to see how Komrade Trump plans to.

 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg
I think it’s pretty clear the people who wrote the 22nd intended for those who had been elected twice to never sit behind the big desk again. They also probably didn’t think someone would be crazy enough to run as a VP and that someone would be willing to be a stooge and run at the top of the ticket and then willingly surrender power as soon as he was sworn in. (This was before the 25th amendment so at the time there wasn’t a way to get the top of the ticket guy back in as VP).

But they didn’t think that when they wrote it that a little baby in New York would grow up to be a big baby and refuse to cede power when his time was up. Nor did they think millions of people would willingly go along with such a scheme.

Had someone on the 22nd Amendment writing committee suggested they throw in a clause saying that anyone elected twice could never become president via some backdoor method they probably would have been told to quit coming up with some crazy scenario and that they weren’t cluttering things up with nonsense like that.

But you could also argue that the intent of the 14th amendment was to help former slaves and not anchor babies that were children of Salvadoran gang bangers.

It’s an issue that SCOTUS will decide. A SCOTUS currently made up of 33% Trump appointees plus Clarence Thomas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bamaro
Putin has certainly arranged things to be president for life. No idea how free the elections are there but he keeps winning.

But Putin is 72 and first took power when he was 47. Trump will be 82 in 2028, a few months older than Biden was on Election Day last year. Are the people who said Biden was too old going to vote for him? Stupid question, I know.

One big hurdle for a Vance-Trump ticket is if Vance resigns, he would need to be approved by both houses of Congress to become VP again. If the Democrats control one or even both would they go along with such a scheme? If Trump is forced to pick a Democrat approved VP and Trump kicks the bucket, that guy is president and Vance is out in the cold. Although he could warm up with the lifetime benefits of being a former president due to his five minute term.

Or Vance could stay as president with Trump as the power behind the throne. But would he want Trump looking over his shoulder? Would Trump want such a role where he isn’t the official top dog? He would be likely be blocked from certain closed door meetings and events. Other world leaders could say they only want to talk to the president.

And then there’s 2032 when Trump is 86. Would they try it again if it works in 2028? Would his cult still vote for him? Again, a stupid question.

Someone mentioned a single six year term for the president. That’s what the Confederate constitution limited their president to. Here is what it said:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be re-eligible.

To me, that is better written than the 22nd as it seems to keep a president from ever sneaking back in.
 
Probably depends on the perception of Trump’s power at mid-terms. Everybody that wants to stay in office will toe the line when it’s time to get re-elected.

This right here is the most important thing that it seems to me too many people forget when they start their ideas that Jon Tester in Montana needs to toe the line with the national Democratic party that isn't very well-liked in his neighborhood. A number of folks here didn't like it when I pointed out there would be people in the Democratic Party in 2016 who WOULD - yes - vote for Trump in the general election after supporting Sanders. "Oh no, they wouldn't do that." Yes, they would, because their appeal isn't ideological in the first place in some cases (the same is true of Trump supporters). If Trump is underwater in Iowa then Jodi Ernst will seek out to triangulate another term. These are not the old Republicans like when Nixon and Reagan would give Cabinet positions or ambassadorships to the party soldiers who lost because they supported the President's agenda, Trump doesn't know the meaning of the word.

None of them is ever going to say it but Hakeem Jefferies is a much more important and well-known national figure if a Republican is President. Think about it: if Newt Gingrich had become Speaker in January 1991, would he have been 1/10th as famous as he became? Yeah, I know, he was an attention seeker but the point still stands. And the same is true for every leader in both parties for a rather obvious reason: Nancy Pelosi isn't the nation's best-known Democrat if Barack Obama is the President. None of them can ever say it, but they become better known (and, yes, richer) if the opposition controls the White House.
 
Btw - folks a certain age will remember when Pat Schroeder labeled Ronald Reagan as "'the Teflon President," claiming that nothing ever stuck to him. But as his biographer Lou Cannon points out, that isn't "exactly" true, either.


Most of those who dealt with Reagan in public life saw the soft surface instead of the hard core, and underrated him. Before he became a “Teflon president” who seemed unaccountable for failure, he was an underestimated president who was given no credit for success. I argue elsewhere in this book that the “Teflon” view that nothing stuck to Reagan does not withstand close scrutiny. Reagan was not immune to the laws of political gravity. His ratings would fall when times were bad or when he was out of touch with the public mood, as they do for other presidents. But there is a small kernel of truth in the rather large grain of Teflon theory. The truth is that the American people understood that he was “one of them,” as Reagan said on the eve of the 1980 election, and extended to him the forgiveness they expected for themselves. Reagan had climbed the ladder of success from the lower rungs, demonstrating a combination of persistence and humility rare among either politicians or actors. While skeptics might say that Reagan was a modest man with much to be modest about, he understood the democratic calculus. Reagan knew, and there was an element of calculation in his knowledge, that the public appreciates humility in its political servants. Anticipating in his autobiography the self-deprecating jokes he would one day tell about his presidential work habits, Reagan quotes a construction foreman on a summer job as telling his father, “This kid of yours can get less dirt on a shovel than any human being that’s human.” He says nothing at all about the long hours he put in at Lowell Park.

Reagan, whose jaunty optimism rekindled memories of Franklin Roosevelt, was compared in these hard times to Herbert Hoover instead. Arriving at a Minneapolis political fund-raiser in February 1982, Reagan was greeted by a banner proclaiming “Welcome President Hoover.” In June, organizers for the homeless pitched a ramshackle “tent city” in the shadow of the White House and conducted similar encampments in fourteen other cities. The tent cities were called “Reagan ranches” and were intended to evoke memories of the Depression shantytowns known as “Hoovervilles.” The White House dismissed the protest as a publicity stunt, but disillusionment with Reagan’s leadership was evident in the public opinion polls. Reagan’s approval ratings, stratospheric after the assassination attempt and high throughout the spring and early summer of 1981, tumbled with the economy. When the nation edged into recession in midsummer, Reagan’s approval rating stood at 60 percent. It fell to 49 percent by year’s end and continued dropping. By the end of 1982, only 41 percent of Americans said they approved of Reagan’s governance, a substantially lower rating than his four elected predecessors had received after two years in the White House. When the economy went to hell in a handbasket, “Teflon” did not apply.
 
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads