How many terms should an American president be able to serve? The 22nd Amendment limits the president to be elected for two terms, and a president who replaced a president who left office for one reason or another, which happened most recently with President Nixon's resignation and replacement with Vice President Ford, if that replacement served over half of the original term, they can only be elected for one additional term. This amendment was put in place after Franklin Roosevelt ran for a fourth term. Before that, the two-term presidency was a tradition set by George Washington's two terms.
That amendment states:
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. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Should that be the case, though? If the American people are happy with a president, should they be limited to two terms? That seems to be what Republican Representative Andy Ogles (TN-05) thinks. He has introduced House Joint Resolution 29, proposing to amend the 22nd Amendment to allow not two, but three terms.
It's a brief, to-the-point amendment:
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to increase the number of times a person may be elected President.
The proposed amendment specifies that no person shall be elected to the office of the President (1) more than three times, (2) for any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, or (3) more than twice after having served as President for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President (for example, if a President died after serving for one year and the Vice President became President for the remaining three years of the term, that person may subsequently be elected President no more than two times).
Currently, under the Twenty-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a person may not be elected President more than twice. Additionally, no person who has been President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President may be elected President more than once.
Is this a good idea? Granted, it's going nowhere; this resolution has about as much chance of passing the House as I do of spontaneously growing space-wings and flying to Tau Ceti.
Read More: Trump, Witkoff, Hegseth Talk the Latest on Iran in Gaggle on Air Force One
Trump Tells Senate GOP He's Not Signing any Other Legislation Until SAVE America Act Is Passed
It's an interesting discussion all the same. The primary argument that I have always seen against term limits at any level is that if the electorate is satisfied with the job an elected official is doing, they should be able to keep that official in place. I don't buy that argument; I've seen too many Schumers and Pelosis growing monstrously rich and influential while spending a millennium or two in office, leaving only when they face a serious risk of fossilization.
And, as for the presidency?
From the Republican standpoint, where the 2028 presidential election is concerned, this doesn't seem to make much sense. Sure, President Trump's ratings among Republican voters have been pretty decent, but it's not as though we have a shallow pool of 2028 candidates. Unlike the Democrats, who seem to be stuck with the likes of the impeccably coiffed failure from California, Governor Gavin Newsom, "Pothole Pete" Buttigieg, or former bartender Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we have a lot of great possible candidates. Not the least of which, we might point out, is the presumptive heir apparent, Vice President Vance. The Republican field is an embarrassment of riches. Also, we might note, President Trump isn't immortal, and in 2028, on election day, he will be 81 years old - although he insists he would be fit and up for a third term.
Then again, there is that self-determination argument. The ultimate term limits are the voters, after all. Shouldn't the voters be trusted with these decisions? Shouldn't the voters decide who they want representing them in office? That's the argument one continually sees in discussions on congressional term limits, after all.
But for the presidency? This has been decided, with a constitutional amendment, the defined process by which our republic decides these questions.
So why this? Why now? It's a bit of a head-scratcher.
President Trump has done some great work, revitalizing American energy, mining, and the military, reducing inflation; there's still a lot more to be done, but Donald Trump isn't the only capable person for the job; I happen to think that JD Vance would make a splendid president; ditto Marco Rubio or Florida's Ron DeSantis. It's hard to see the value in introducing something like this right now, especially when it could be used to the Democrats' advantage in some future election.
This proposal isn't going anywhere. I'm inclined to believe it shouldn't go anywhere. Of course, the world's got no shortage of windmills to tilt at.
