Jump to content

Talk:Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should list all presidents to whom 22nd Amendment applies/applied

[edit]

Earlier today, I added in the presidents (Ike, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama and eventually Trump) to whom the 22nd Amendment applies or applied. I was reverted 🙄. I'm starting this discussion to propose that the list be added back in.


Somebody said "it's most presidents since DDE"...not really true...JFK, LBJ, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr. and Biden are NOT (or were not) subject to the 22nd Amendment. pbp 00:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It only adds a couple hundred characters, if that. It would only be a small fraction of the length of the article.
How would anybody know WHICH HALF without the list?
And it's VERY important to the significance of the article to explain TO WHOM the amendment applied. It's not an Amendment like prohibition that applies to everybody. pbp 20:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one salient point that could, after January 20, 2025, be added to the paragraph is: The current president, Donald Trump, is barred election to a third term by the amendment. Drdpw (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:

Support—I don't think it's unreasonable to include, particularly since it is a smaller list than our intuitive sense of things might suggest, but I think saying it only applies to those presidents is odd wording. It applies to every president/candidate, just as any law restricting action applies to anyone capable of taking the prohibited action. Clearer wording might be to explain that only those presidents have faced conditions in which their actions were directly impacted by the amendment? Dunno, either way I think it's reasonable to include a short list that enhances understanding of the role the amendment has played since its passage. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, it applied to Johnson, who served less than half of Kennedy's term, in that he could be elected twice on his own, and to Ford, who served more than half of Nixon's second term, in that he could only be elected once on his own. It also applied to Carter, Bush (Sr.), and Biden, they simply got elected only once. (It applied to Kennedy as well, but he died having been elected only once.) That all makes for a convoluted explanation. Drdpw (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw: I thought the wording of the edit you just did was really nice btw, and think "has barred ... from serving a third term" is a nice way to word things in terms of the issue @Purplebackpack89: is thinking about as well. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's gotta list all seven, not just say there are seven. Why is listing all seven twice-elected presidents so controversial. pbp 00:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My third opinion was that it makes sense to list all of them. I might have made that less clear with my reply complimenting User:Drdpw's edit, but I just meant that I liked the way they finessed the wording to provide more clarity in their most recent edit, I wasn't going back on my third opinion. Peace. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Penultimate supper: though I disagree with the (other editor's) assertion that listing the names is very important to the article, I hear what you are saying about it not being unreasonable to include them. Thank you for your input. Drdpw (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth adding to 'Attempts at repeal'?

[edit]

Only today, president-elect Trump apparently joked in a meeting with House Republicans: "I suspect I won’t be running again, unless you say, he’s good, we got to figure something else". Source: [1] 156.55.110.45 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chatter about repealing the 22nd amendment will doubtless be non-stop for the next four years. You raise a good question though, at what point do we view the chatter as no longer NOTNEWS? Drdpw (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is a source for this, but I think until there's either repeated talk, campaigns or consideration by caucuses, or legislation introduced, it's not worth adding to the article. Now, I suspect repeated talk or more serious coverage that leads to widespread discourse is on it's way real soon. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump should not be on the list of those to whom the Amendment applies

[edit]

Seems odd to state in the Effects section that Trump is one of the presidents whom "the amendment has barred ...from election to a third term". When Trump is duly elected to a second term, inaugurated and reaches the end of a second term in 2029, this will be true, assuming that the Amendment is still in force at that time.

Seems more elegant to redraft to say that it is anticipated that the amendment will prevent a third Trump term. MosheDov1 (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is accurate now, and will be unless / until the 22nd Amendment is repealed. Drdpw (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not accurate now, because we are not permitted to predict the future. While it is acceptable to assume things that are "almost certain to take place" (such as the Amendment not being repealed), it is not acceptable to assume that an infirm elderly man will live another 4 years. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is accurate, as Trump has in fact been elected POTUS twice. No predictions or assumptions there. Remember that the 22nd Amendment is about being elected no more than twice . Drdpw (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing a different point. I agree that we can assume that the 22nd will not be repealed by or ignored in 2028. We cannot assume that Trump will be alive. The current text says "the amendment has barred" certain presidents from running in an election, and Trump has never been barred from running in an election. He may be barred from running in 2028, but that is not at all certain. This is true of any president, but is especially true of the oldest president ever. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we cannot assume that Donald Trump will be alive in 2028. However, once the electoral college votes in December and (Presumably) elects Donald Trump president for a second time, he will be prohibited from running for president under terms of the 22nd Amendment. And this will be a fact regardless of his longevity – whether he dies in office or completes his full second term. Perhaps the sentence wording should be changed so as to more clearly make this point. Interestingly, in December 2012, after Barack Obama was elected president for a second time, the wording of the relevant sentence in the article was changed to state: Currently, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama are the only otherwise qualified Americans prohibited from running for President under terms of the amendment. Drdpw (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former Presidents serving in a Cabinet Position

[edit]

The 22nd Amendment doesn't allow a president to serve a third term either consecutively or separate, and one termers can be elected once more. The 12th Amendment doesn't allow anyone who is not eigible to be president cannot be vice president, it was ratified on June 15, 1804 almost a century and a half earlier (146 years, 257 days) earlier to be exact. I know there's no Constituional Amendment that states that a former president cannot serve in a Cabinet position, I mean Donald Trump for an example could serve in Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and be skipped in the line of succession, we've seen not a natural born citizen serve in a presidents cabinet before and they were skipped in the line of succession, despite Trump will be 82 years old if he makes it. 2603:6011:E00:4C41:0:0:0:100C (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic; this is not a forum for discussing hypothetical (in)eligibility to be acting president. Drdpw (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do so many sources refer to the Hoover Commission?

[edit]

The Britannica page on the 22nd Amendment suggests that the Twenty-Second Amendment was one of 273 recommendations by the Hoover Commission established by Truman:

Britannica - Twenty-second Amendment

But the First Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government was established in July 1947, and didn't give its recommendations until 1949:

National Archives - Records of the Commissions on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (Hoover Commissions)

The 22nd Amendment, meanwhile, was already proposed by Congress and sent to states for the ratification process in March 1947, a few months before the commission was even created:

Congressional Research Service - Presidential Terms and Tenure: Perspectives and Proposals for Change (page 18)

Many other sources closely mirror Britannica's content.

Wikipedia's own page on the amendment had this content added by an editor in August 2009. This oddity was pointed out in the talk page in September 2009, content edited out accordingly in March 2010, and last vestiges removed in October 2011.

Why do so many sources have this erroneous content, when the dates do not add up? Perhaps it is because the references consulted for the two things (amendment and commission) often do not clearly state the dates? Because, once you do find helpful sources (see the National Archives page and the Congressional Research Service .pdf file, linked above) and check the dates, you can see that they don't add up.

And how did this misconception progress? Did these sources collectively misunderstand what the commission did or how the amendment developed, like some Mandela Effect, or did they all get the content from a single source (like Britannica) that misled these other sources? And why did that original source state this? Did Britannica draft this content based on what the Wikipedia article said after that one editor added the content, or did that editor read the Britannica page when updating this wiki article (without citing that page)?

Lastly, are there sources that talk about this shared misconception as a phenomenon? If so, there could be a "Misconceptions" section added to this article, similar to what is in the Titles of Nobility Amendment article. 2600:1012:A021:52EC:8564:F079:91C5:1F36 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified the sources of this misconception. 2600:1012:A021:52EC:8564:F079:91C5:1F36 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this misconception may be perpetuated, that does not make it notable in this article.Drdpw (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not? These two things are associated together in multiple sources that can be used as citations in other places. Being in multiple citable sources would make this worth addressing.
If it relates to the article subject, wouldn't there be some need have a comment on what these source materials say? Because if you just leave them be, then the misconception would remain there and can propagate to other information materials or to Wikipedia articles, leading to a bigger problem. All because they don't properly state the dates - if you see the dates you would be able to tell that something is wrong.
It's entirely possible that the one wiki edit was in fact the origin of this misconception and the sources picked up on that edit. This should be investigated and if that does turn out to be the case, then the topic should be added to the citogenesis list. (If the misunderstanding originated from this wiki, then it should be the responsibility of this wiki to provide a response to that.)
Is there really not a source that points out this error? 2600:1012:A021:E5C8:81A6:BAE0:40A7:EA5E (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's always a (due process) loophole...

[edit]

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...

This doesn't prevent a two-term president from running for a third-term. The actual election happens by the state electors meeting in their respective states to vote for President and Vice President. on the set by Congress as the Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December. If challenged, Due Process requires that the constitutionality of these votes go through the courts to declare if they actually violate the 22nd Amendment. Asherkobin (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial statement is accurate, and is noted in the article. Do you have specific, reliably sourced, wording improvements to suggest to the Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment section? Drdpw (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=1281125831"