Latest news with #22ndAmendment
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Aging, Slurring Trump ‘Lives in Fear' of Dad's Dementia
Donald Trump 'lives in fear' of suffering the same cognitive decline his father did, according to a brutal assessment by an MSNBC guest. The Weekend: Primetime welcomed Timothy L. O'Brien, senior executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion, to discuss Trump's musings about a third term in office. The political analyst, speaking on the second installment of the show after its debut on Saturday, said the president's motivation has always been either 'self-aggrandizement' or 'self-preservation.' O'Brien added, however, that he doesn't believe Trump will actually run again—even though he'd 'love to live until he's 300.' 'And I think he'd like to be president for 200 more years if he could,' O'Brien quipped. However, the 78-year-old's vitality has visibly waned and he is acutely aware of his mortality, the panelist added. 'As I was watching that clip, you know, one of the things that really struck me is, Donald Trump has aged,' he said. 'When people talk about the things that are going to get in the way of a third term for Donald Trump, obviously, it's voters. Obviously, it's the 22nd Amendment. But he's turning 79 in June.' Despite Trump's musings, the amendment prohibits anyone who has been elected twice from being elected again. Age and his family's track record with brain disease should be his primary concern though, O'Brien suggested. 'He lives in fear of going down the path his father went down, which was dementia, followed by Alzheimer's, into his 90s. And I think he's carried that burden forever,' the journalist added. Fred Trump, a real estate developer, died of both pneumonia and Alzheimer's disease at age 93 in 1999. This was eight years after his first formal diagnosis of dementia. He retained his title of chairman of the board of Trump Management even after the diagnosis. He also continued to come into work, according to family friend and business associate Richard Levy. 'He came in the office every day until the day he went to the hospital,' he said after Fred Trump's passing. Trump junior reportedly avoids talking about the touchy subject, partly because he bashed his predecessor Joe Biden for allegedly being cognitively impaired, but also because he fears this could be his fate too, O'Brien said. 'Watching how he answers questions now compared to Trump 1.0, he slurs his words a little, he looks weary, he is slouched. And I don't know how much authentic enthusiasm he has for the power and the office he holds, other than the fact that it keeps him out of jail and it keeps him center stage,' he added. Donald Trump's nephew Fred C. Trump III said last year that he fears a similar path for the president. 'Like anyone else, I've seen his decline. But I see it in parallel with the way my grandfather's decline was,' Fred, 61, told People. 'If anyone wants to believe that dementia did not run in the Trump family, it's just not true.'
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - How a fictional Vice President Trump could become reality
Last week, I speculated about the possibility of Donald Trump seeking a de facto third term by running as vice president with a puppet as president. I received a flurry of responses citing the Constitution's 12th Amendment as making that likelihood impossible and illegal. A constitutional debate can be dry and arcane. So let's put this possibility into fictional terms, such as the movies 'Advise and Consent,' or even 'Seven Days in May.' Assume, for fictional purposes, the main character has served two terms as president and will not give up power easily. A coup like the one in 'Seven Days in May' is not possible. So, the president brings together a legal team to present a plan that allows the president to run as vice president and circumvent these prohibitions. The last sentence of the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, reads: 'But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.' The 22nd Amendment, approved in 1951, states in part that: '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.' Can these two apparently conflicting amendments be resolved? The president's lawyers show how he can run for vice president. The 12th Amendment applied the same requirements for the president to the vice president because that person could assume the presidency if it became vacant. They must be at least 35 years of age, native born, be a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and win a majority of the Electoral College. The 22nd Amendment was passed 147 years later. Clearly, the two–term limit should not be applicable retroactively. If the president left office before the end of the term, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is next in line, would assume the office. The president is disqualified by the 22nd Amendment. The lawyers also lay out the opposite case that the 22nd Amendment takes precedence, meaning no president can serve more than two terms, in order to strategize how to beat this counterargument. The answer should be obvious: Let the courts decide. For purposes of this story, the president has appointed enough conservative Supreme Court associate judges to give himself an apparent 7-2 majority. Hence, as this case would go to the court, the president almost certainly would win. Of course, the consequences of this decision would be the equivalent of a political nuclear explosion. In this movie, the lawyers would review the most contested and controversial elections, which took place in 1876 and 2000. On Nov. 7, 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. Tilden led Hayes by more than 260,000 popular votes. As the Electoral College met to determine the president, Tilden had 184 electoral votes, one less than needed to win the election. Hayes had only 165. However, 19 electoral votes were in doubt. How was this constitutional stalemate resolved? With no supporting case for precedence, the U.S. Congress formed an Electoral Commission. After considerable and heated debate, in early March 1877, the commission awarded the 20 contested electoral votes to Hayes. Thus, while losing the popular vote, Hayes won the election 185-184. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote over George W. Bush. But despite ongoing recounts in Florida, whose electoral votes would determine the winner, the Supreme Court ordered that the recount be halted. Bush was in the lead and was elected president. The election of 2028 in this plot could make these two cases seem tame. Graphic riots and violence would be the likely outcome. But in 2000, the story rested in the Supreme Court, where one angry judge halted the proceedings, throwing the election into chaos. Originally, presidents were inaugurated on March 20 because of slow-paced horse and carriage transportation. Inauguration Day in this era is Jan. 20. Moving from fiction to reality and the possibility that Trump would actually seek the vice presidency, the lesson is clear for Democrats: Winning the House in 2028 is vital. But what a story the alternative brings! Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are working on a forthcoming book. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
How a fictional Vice President Trump could become reality
Last week, I speculated about the possibility of Donald Trump seeking a de facto third term by running as vice president with a puppet as president. I received a flurry of responses citing the Constitution's 12th Amendment as making that likelihood impossible and illegal. A constitutional debate can be dry and arcane. So let's put this possibility into fictional terms, such as the movies 'Advise and Consent,' or even 'Seven Days in May.' Assume, for fictional purposes, the main character has served two terms as president and will not give up power easily. A coup like the one in 'Seven Days in May' is not possible. So, the president brings together a legal team to present a plan that allows the president to run as vice president and circumvent these prohibitions. The last sentence of the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, reads: 'But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.' The 22nd Amendment, approved in 1951, states in part that: '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.' Can these two apparently conflicting amendments be resolved? The president's lawyers show how he can run for vice president. The 12th Amendment applied the same requirements for the president to the vice president because that person could assume the presidency if it became vacant. They must be at least 35 years of age, native born, be a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and win a majority of the Electoral College. The 22nd Amendment was passed 147 years later. Clearly, the two–term limit should not be applicable retroactively. If the president left office before the end of the term, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is next in line, would assume the office. The president is disqualified by the 22nd Amendment. The lawyers also lay out the opposite case that the 22nd Amendment takes precedence, meaning no president can serve more than two terms, in order to strategize how to beat this counterargument. The answer should be obvious: Let the courts decide. For purposes of this story, the president has appointed enough conservative Supreme Court associate judges to give himself an apparent 7-2 majority. Hence, as this case would go to the court, the president almost certainly would win. Of course, the consequences of this decision would be the equivalent of a political nuclear explosion. In this movie, the lawyers would review the most contested and controversial elections, which took place in 1876 and 2000. On Nov. 7, 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. Tilden led Hayes by more than 260,000 popular votes. As the Electoral College met to determine the president, Tilden had 184 electoral votes, one less than needed to win the election. Hayes had only 165. However, 19 electoral votes were in doubt. How was this constitutional stalemate resolved? With no supporting case for precedence, the U.S. Congress formed an Electoral Commission. After considerable and heated debate, in early March 1877, the commission awarded the 20 contested electoral votes to Hayes. Thus, while losing the popular vote, Hayes won the election 185-184. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote over George W. Bush. But despite ongoing recounts in Florida, whose electoral votes would determine the winner, the Supreme Court ordered that the recount be halted. Bush was in the lead and was elected president. The election of 2028 in this plot could make these two cases seem tame. Graphic riots and violence would be the likely outcome. But in 2000, the story rested in the Supreme Court, where one angry judge halted the proceedings, throwing the election into chaos. Originally, presidents were inaugurated on March 20 because of slow-paced horse and carriage transportation. Inauguration Day in this era is Jan. 20. Moving from fiction to reality and the possibility that Trump would actually seek the vice presidency, the lesson is clear for Democrats: Winning the House in 2028 is vital. But what a story the alternative brings! Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are working on a forthcoming book.
USA Today
6 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Your kids are inheriting this democracy. Are you teaching them how it works?
Your kids are inheriting this democracy. Are you teaching them how it works? | Your Turn Kids live in the world, and that world is governed by systems that transform the choices of people into policies. Pretending otherwise doesn't protect them; it leaves them unprepared. Show Caption Hide Caption NSB students learn about voting and campaigning with mock election Read-Pattillo Elementary students wonder what it's like to be president, what they'd change and who would make a good leader. The other day, while we were unpacking groceries, my 12-year-old asked, 'Wait… can a president just stay president if they don't want to leave?' She'd overheard something about how President Trump wanted to stay on for a third term and wasn't sure how it all worked. I paused and tried to give her a clear answer. No, based on our constitutional limits for the length of the presidency and the 22nd Amendment limiting people to two full elected terms, President Trump could not lawfully stay on for three terms. Now, as a political science professor, that answer was more at-the-ready for me than it might be for most parents. But for most kids, questions about politics are perfectly reasonable as they try to figure out their world. These questions don't always have a perfect or totally known answer, but they're moments we shouldn't waste. We need to teach our kids more than just to dread politics, we need to teach them how to do and understand politics. Like every other parent, I'm tired. I'm busy. I don't always feel equipped to deliver a mini civics lesson on demand. But I also know this: if I don't talk to my child about politics, someone else – or something else will. Whether it's classmates, YouTube or any of the billions of things vying for their attention, kids are absorbing political information all the time. Our job is to help them make sense of it. Our politics are already impacting our kids - a lot We often treat politics like something to shield our children from. We say they're too young or it's too contentious. But politics isn't something that starts at 18. It's already shaping their lives: in the air they breathe, the schools they attend and the list goes on. Kids live in the world, and that world is governed by systems that transform the choices of people into policies. Pretending otherwise doesn't protect them; it leaves them unprepared. That doesn't mean parents need to launch into lecture mode every time a news story breaks. But it does mean we should make politics safe to talk about at the kitchen table, just like sports, shows or weekend plans. Your Turn: As a teacher I see how cruel political rhetoric makes our kids less kind Here are a few things to keep in mind: 1. Don't dodge the hard stuff A few years ago, right after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, my daughter asked, 'What is an abortion?' That's not a question most parents hope to answer on the fly. But she was asking because she wanted to understand – and because she trusted me. I gave her the basics: what abortion is, why people have them and how different states now have different laws. That opened the door to a broader conversation about federalism and how state-level politics matter. It wasn't a perfect conversation. But it didn't have to be. It just had to be honest, age-appropriate and open. Kids don't expect us to be experts. If we avoid their questions, they'll learn that politics is taboo – and that curiosity isn't welcome. Your Turn: I voted for Trump, but I can't bring myself to support anything he's done 2. Model how to talk about politics, especially when it's hard Kids mirror how we react to the world. If they hear us constantly ranting about how corrupt politicians are or how broken the system is, they'll internalize that cynicism. If, instead, they see us wrestle with tough issues, admit what we don't know and speak with respect about people we disagree with, they'll learn that political engagement doesn't have to mean yelling or silent despair. When starting a discussion, I suggest this as your first question: 'What have you heard about that?' No one has to defend a position; they're simply laying out what they know. From there, you can explore together. One of the greatest gifts we can give our kids is the ability to disagree without shutting down or shouting. It's something many adults could practice, too. 3. Show them that politics is people, not just problems For many kids, the government feels distant and impersonal. They hear about Congress or the president, but they don't know who represents them or how to engage. Change that. Look up your local representatives together. Attend a community board meeting. Write a letter to an elected official about something your child cares about – parks, school lunches or animal shelters, and go see the spaces of government together. These small acts help kids see that government isn't just something that happens to them – it's something they can influence. They begin to understand that democracy isn't a spectator sport. And importantly, they don't have to wait until they're 18 to start participating. Parents often ask me, 'When is the right age to start talking to kids about politics?' My response: You already are. Every time you comment on the news, vote, donate, vent or stay silent, you're sending a message. Your child is watching, listening and learning. In my book "How to Raise a Citizen (And Why It's Up to You to Do It)," I remind readers that our kids will inherit this democracy, however healthy or fractured it may be. We can't wait for someone else to teach them how it works. We have to step in and show them – even if that means learning more ourselves along the way. Talking politics with kids doesn't have to be formal. It can happen while walking the dog or riding to school. The key is to stay open, curious and remember that you don't need all the answers. You just need to show them how to care, how to learn more, and how to engage with the country they're growing up in. So the next time your kid asks about primary elections (hello, NYC), protests, or presidents – don't deflect. These little conversations are what raise citizens. And that's exactly what our country needs right now. Lindsey Cormack, author of How to Raise a Citizen (And Why It's Up to You to Do It). This piece was submitted as part of USA TODAY's Forum, a new space for conversation. See what we're talking about at and share your perspective at forum@
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Lessons from the state GOP convention
The recently concluded Utah Republican Organizing Convention results offer an interesting insight into what may happen in the near future. We offer our perspectives. Current GOP chair Rob Axson prevailed over his opponent, former state representative Phil Lyman 52%-48%. This was more than just a contest to see who would be the next chairman. This election was influenced by external forces and signaled direction for the state's majority party. What does Axson's reelection mean? COWLEY: President Trump and Sen. Mike Lee are the darlings of delegates, and their endorsements tipped the scales in this contest. It wasn't Lee's endorsement of Axson that I found more notable from the convention. It was his urging that the Legislature repeal SB54, which allowed candidates to bypass the convention process. Both Axson and Lyman campaigned on eliminating the signature path, but were split on who has the authority to implement the change. Trump's policies may be popular with delegates, but many MAGA Republicans side-eye the usurpation of the 22nd Amendment regarding a third presidential term. Delegates narrowly voted down a resolution to 'oppose and condemn any measure or action' that would allow the president to serve more than two terms. With one faction of delegates opposing a third Trump term, juxtaposed with another faction donning Trump 2028 hats, the upcoming presidential election will be interesting, to say the least. Delegates' clear penchant for Trump and Lee is the antithesis of their sentiment toward Gov. Spencer Cox. Nobody can blame the governor for not attending this year's convention after the delegates' crass behavior last year. Disagreeing with a politician is one thing, but boos and jeers for our state's highest office holder is unbecoming of our party and Utah as a whole. PIGNANELLI: 'What we have in our power is gratitude. It can be culturally contagious.'— Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Various conditions can plague successful people and prevent them from enjoying their achievements. Something similar is affecting the local GOP. Republicans control the congressional delegation, over two-thirds of the state Legislature, all the statewide offices, most county governments, etc. Utah is continually honored for a well-managed government and strong economy. Thus, activists should have spent Saturday morning congratulating themselves, thanking voters, and re-electing Axson by acclamation. Instead, they engaged once again in this silly fight over minutia, which blemishes positive messaging to the general public. The closeness of the race defies reason because Axson is a solid chairman. Without strong Democratic opposition to focus their energies, Republican delegates are instead chewing on other party members. Although delegates deferred a decision on the proposed resolution to the party constitution revoking membership of candidates seeking nomination through signatures, it's still a major issue for the party's activists. Where is this issue heading into the next legislative session and beyond? COWLEY: Let's examine why delegates support only one path to party nomination. Some believe delegates are more engaged and better informed for candidate vetting. As a former delegate, I can fully endorse that statement. Others say the convention is harder to manipulate and produces more conservative candidates. Since the passage of SB54, I haven't observed Republican candidates becoming less conservative, and both processes yield creative campaign tactics - caucus stacking and coordinated, paid signature gathering. Convention-only arguments seem to be rooted in protectionism while signature gathering favors wealthy candidates. Neither path is without its shortcomings. As candidates, legislators conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Signature gathering is costly, but it's an insurance policy. Convention-only can be expensive without any guarantee of making it to the Primary. As policymakers, legislators are divided on the best approach for candidate selection. PIGNANELLI: Delegates comprise less than 1% of Republican voters. But they want control over the nominating process restored. Because they are more engaged than the average citizen, their activism cannot be dismissed. But on the other side of the conundrum is the fact that, should the Legislature eliminate the signature gathering process, many events would be triggered. A referendum, an initiative, and a restricting of resources to the party will likely occur should delegates regain control of the nominating process. What's likely to happen? The existing passive-aggressive strategy will continue. Many elected Republican officials will grumble about the signature gathering process, praise legislation that reverses it, but ensure the bill fades away in the last days of the session. This will keep the peace. Such is practical politics. Congressional deliberations surrounding the recent tax bill imply a split between MAGA and mainstream Republicans. Is this happening in Utah? COWLEY: Congressional holdouts are conservative hardliners. They like the 'big beautiful budget bill' but feel it doesn't go far enough to reduce the deficit. Moody's downgrading of the U.S. credit rating fuels these concerns. Comparable budget hawks also serve in Utah's Legislature, but because of our constitutionally mandated balanced budget, similar dynamics don't arise. PIGNANELLI: The Utah delegation has perfected the ability of throwing red meat to the activists but working behind the scenes to ensure a working relationship with the president, his team and their colleagues. Similar dynamics occur in the Legislature, in which local MAGA lawmakers receive attention but the necessary work (budgets, appropriations, infrastructure, economic features, etc.) are always a priority. Republican Renae Cowley is a political consultant, lobbyist, social media influencer, and professional rodeo athlete. Email: capitolcowgirl@ Frank Pignanelli is a Salt Lake attorney, lobbyist, and political adviser who served as a Democrat in the Utah State Legislature. Email: frankp@
