logo
When Presidents Sought a Third (and Fourth) Term

When Presidents Sought a Third (and Fourth) Term

Yahoo01-05-2025

This is an edition of Time-Travel Thursdays, a journey through The Atlantic's archives to contextualize the present. Sign up here.
President Donald Trump has been back in the White House for just more than 100 days, and he's already thinking about a third term. For much of American history, the notion would have been laughable.
Nearly a century ago, the historian John Bach McMaster surveyed the first 138 years of the presidency and hazarded a prediction in the pages of The Atlantic: 'Should the time come when a president who has twice been elected to office seeks a third election, he will surely meet great opposition, for the no-third-term doctrine is still strong.'
Within 13 years, he would be proven wrong. In 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt coasted to an unprecedented third term, capturing 55 percent of the popular vote and a whopping 85 percent in the Electoral College. As the writer Gerald W. Johnson observed the following year, 27 million voters 'trampled down the thitherto sacred third-term tradition in order to reëlect the chief New Dealer.'
Roosevelt was breaking no law at the time he sought a third term. The two-term presidential limit was a mere custom established when George Washington stepped down voluntarily after eight years in office. Two presidents—Ulysses S. Grant in 1880, and FDR's fifth cousin Theodore Roosevelt in 1912—had previously tried (and failed) to return to the White House for third, nonconsecutive terms. Roosevelt's victory was not a surprise, and certainly not to readers of this magazine at the time. Barely a year into FDR's second term, the journalist J. Frederick Essary made a prediction that would hold up much better than McMaster's: 'If Mr. Roosevelt runs a third time,' Essary wrote, 'he will be renominated and reëlected.'
But no president would do so again. Roosevelt won a fourth term in 1944, as the nation chose not to replace its commander in chief during the height of World War II. The president's worsening health was unknown to the public, and he died less than three months after his fourth inauguration, in April 1945. His death, and the end of the war soon after, revived a debate over whether to formalize what McMaster called 'the unwritten law of the Republic.' America's founders had considered writing a term limit into the original Constitution as a way to prevent a power-hungry president from becoming too much like a king. After Roosevelt's death in office, and after having just fought a war to defeat dictators in Europe, that argument gained new momentum. In 1951, the states ratified the Twenty-Second Amendment, which says that 'no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.'
Such an ironclad prohibition would seem to rule out a third term for President Donald Trump. But that hasn't stopped him or his biggest supporters from musing about the possibility of another run in 2028. 'I'm not joking,' he told NBC News last month. 'There are methods which you could do it.' (As if to prove the point, or to troll his critics, the official retail website of Trump's company is now selling Trump 2028 hats.) When my colleague Ashley Parker asked Trump about a possible third term last week, he said it was 'not something that I'm looking to do.' But he was clearly intrigued by the idea: 'That would be a big shattering, wouldn't it?'
To get around the Twenty-Second Amendment, Trump's allies have floated the idea that he could run for vice president on the ticket of, say, J. D. Vance in the next election. If Vance won, he could resign, thereby making Trump president without him having to be 'elected' to the office more than twice. (The Twelfth Amendment, however, seems to cut off that path, because it states that 'no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.') Or Trump could simply run for president and dare the Supreme Court to throw him off the ballot in the middle of an election.
Should the Supreme Court blink, the decision of whether two terms of Trump are enough would fall to voters. The president has never been as popular as FDR was during his years in the White House. But if history is a guide, it would be wrong to assume the public would automatically uphold a long-established limit. Just ask Essary: 'It is difficult to believe that the mass of the people care very deeply about the third term in itself,' he wrote in 1937. 'There is nothing in our experience as a nation to prove that they do care; and there is much to indicate how little the average man concerns himself about the matter.' It's a sentiment that, some nine decades later, Trump might be willing to bet on.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections
Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections

WASHINGTON — The House advanced a bill to ban noncitizens from voting in local elections in Washington, D.C., marking the latest step from Republicans to crack down on city policies they view as too liberal. Lawmakers voted 268-148 largely along party lines to advance the measure, sending the bill over to the Republican-led Senate for consideration. The bill managed to garner some bipartisan support after 56 Democrats voted in favor. However, the legislation's future is uncertain as it would require seven Democrats to buck party leadership and support the proposal. 'The right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship,' House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a speech on the House floor. 'Diluting that right by extending it to noncitizens — whether here legally or illegally — undermines the voice of D.C. residents.' The bill would overturn the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bill passed by the D.C. Council in 2022 that permits undocumented residents living in Washington to vote in local elections. City lawmakers have defended the measure by pointing to a 'long history of the U.S. allowing noncitizens to vote in local (or) state' elections. Lawmakers also note many of the undocumented residents pay local taxes, support businesses, and attend district schools — arguing that should qualify them to have a say in local elections. However, Republicans have argued that allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections sets a dangerous precedent that could negatively harm local governments. 'Some may wrongly dismiss these as local elections. The reality is local elections are a vital part of our democratic process and have a significant impact on communities,' Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, who led the bill in the House, said in a speech. 'Local elections determine matters such as taxation, the criminal code, and the election of city council members who create essential ordinances, including those that dictate voting rights.' Additionally, Republicans have criticized the law as a way to dilute 'the voice of American citizens.' 'It's also important to acknowledge that many local elections are decided by razor-thin margins underscoring their significance and importance of active participation,' Pfluger said. GOP lawmakers also cited opposition from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who withheld her signature from the ordinance but allowed it to take effect. 'Why would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want foreigners to vote in local elections in Washington, D.C.? What's the purpose?' Pfluger said. 'Free and fair elections are prerequisites for the healthy republic our founding fathers envisioned, with the District of Columbia as the epicenter.' House Republicans passed a bill in 2023 seeking to repeal the D.C. law allowing noncitizens to vote. The bill was spearheaded by Republicans but 52 Democrats ultimately joined all Republicans in approving the bill despite efforts from Democratic leadership to quash the proposal. However, the legislation was never considered in the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats at the time. Despite not being a state, Washington is permitted to operate as an independent city government under the D.C. Home Rule Act. However, local laws are still subject to congressional approval before they can take effect, occasionally setting up showdowns between Congress and local lawmakers. The vote on Tuesday is the first of three bills being considered this week by the House to rein in some of D.C.'s local ordinances. Other proposals being considered would rescind D.C. Council policies allowing city employees to not comply with requests from the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Los Angeles mayor announces curfew as anti-ICE protests continue downtown
Los Angeles mayor announces curfew as anti-ICE protests continue downtown

CBS News

time30 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Los Angeles mayor announces curfew as anti-ICE protests continue downtown

Mayor Karen Bass announced a curfew for downtown Los Angeles as anti-ICE protests continued on Tuesday. The curfew will begin at 8 p.m. tonight, last until Wednesday morning, and apply to one square mile of downtown L.A. For five consecutive days, protesters and law enforcement have lined the streets of downtown, resulting in nearly 200 arrests. Some of the encounters between demonstrators and police turned violent at times. The demonstrations started on Friday after several immigration raids in the Westlake District, downtown and South LA. Crowds quickly formed around federal agents during the operations. Some individuals attempted to prevent authorities from placing individuals into vans. The nearly week-long protest caught the attention of President Trump, who deployed thousands of troops from the California National Guard and 700 U.S. Marines to protect federal buildings, against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom. "Donald Trump is putting fuel on this fire. Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the Governor of that state is illegal and immoral," Newsom wrote Sunday on X. "California will be taking him to court."

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. appeals court rules
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. appeals court rules

CNBC

time33 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. appeals court rules

A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The Federal Circuit said the litigation raised issues of "exceptional importance" warranting the court to take the rare step of having the 11-member court hear the appeal, rather than have it go before a three-judge panel first. It scheduled arguments for July 31. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store