Latest news with #27thAmendment
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Alarms over the 27th constitutional tweak
While the federal government has yet to formally move ahead with the 27th Constitutional Amendment, murmurs of discontent and debate have already taken root within the legal fraternity as the Supreme Court resumes hearings on review petitions challenging the July 12 order in the reserved seats case. Tensions escalated further when Islamabad High Bar Association (IHCBA) President Wajid Gilani came out in support of the proposed amendment, hailing it as an opportunity for much-needed "structural reforms" in the superior judiciary. However, the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) fired back, condemning Gilani's stance and warning that lawyers from Sindh would "strongly resist, by any means necessary, any attempt to reintroduce martial law and impose this judicial one-unit scheme upon the federation of Pakistan". 'Post-constitutional order' Weighing in, former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar pointed out that the original draft of the 26th Amendment had already been significantly revised under duress. "In the face of opposition, to the chagrin of the Established Order, many of its amendment clauses had to be dropped from the final draft. But they were not abandoned as a lost cause," Khokhar said. He argued that the current political climate is "propitious" for reintroducing those previously omitted provisions through the 27th Amendment. "Victory on the battlefield can be seductive. Opposition is almost invariably a daunting task in Pakistan. More so now than ever before. Even otherwise, controlled institutions, lacking public legitimacy, unrepresentative legislatures and executives, the mainstream media and the legal fraternity are vying for collaboration." Khokhar warned that these dormant clauses could now return with ease, asserting that the 26th Amendment had already propelled Pakistan into a "post-constitutional order". "The proposed 27th Amendment will 'formally' replace the already diminished rule of law with rule by law (law as an instrument of control). Expect reintroduction of military courts, a federal constitutional court, revamped judicial commission, redefined provincial powers, diminished judiciary, curtailment of the fundamental rights, marginalisation of the constitutional institutions, an authoritarian presidential system and more," he said. "The supreme tragic irony is that the intended victims are, with rare honourable exceptions, willing accomplices in and apologists for offences against the constitution and democracy," Khokhar warned. Meanwhile, lawyers have begun to question why the committee of constitutional benches, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, has not yet fixed hearings on petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment, as it moves swiftly on the reserved seats case – a matter deemed crucial for enabling the ruling coalition to secure two-thirds majority in Parliament. Observers note that the constitutional bench appears eager to wrap up the proceedings on the reserved seats case without delay. However, questions are being raised over whether such haste risks undermining judicial independence, a salient feature of the Constitution. Moreover, the very formation of the constitutional bench is itself under scrutiny. A section of the legal community alleges that those who benefited from the 26th Amendment are hesitant to adjudicate its legal challenges. In 2015, a majority of SC judges, in the landmark 21st Constitutional Amendment case, had held that the parliamentary form of government was a salient feature of the Constitution and could not be amended via constitutional amendment. Justice (retd) Sheikh Azmat Saeed authored the judgment, which was endorsed by eight judges. According to the verdict, the constitution contains a scheme that reflects its salient features. "In an effort to discover such salient features, material outside the Constitution cannot be safely relied upon. The salient features are ascertainable from the Constitution including democracy, the parliamentary form of government and independence of the judiciary," the ruling read. It further stated that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was subject to implied limitations. As per Articles 238 and 239, Parliament may amend the Constitution, provided that the salient features are not repealed, abrogated, or substantively altered. The judgment also affirmed that the apex court is vested with jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution and to determine whether any constitutional amendment violates its defining features. While the majority judgment remains in force, legal circles maintain that there was still a pressing need for the top court to examine the validity of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. They caution that further delay in adjudication could open the door for additional constitutional amendments, potentially threatening the Constitution's foundational principles. Meanwhile, in its strongly worded statement, the Karachi Bar Association expressed dismay over IHCBA President Gilani's public endorsement of an amendment "as yet unknown to the nation at large". "The lawyers and the people of Pakistan expect Bar Associations and Bar Councils to be independent voices. They must not act as proxies on behalf of the Government and be used to throw out feelers on the Government's behalf and declare support and rubber-stamp constitutional amendments that are yet to even see the light of day." The KBA argued that making such statements while the legal community continues to grapple with the consequences of the 26th Amendment, which has not only been rejected by the legal community at large but is also sub judice, was "entirely unwarranted". "If indeed there is any such Amendment on the anvil and the Government has seen fit to secretly share its contents with the IHCBA President; he should share the same with his actual constituents – which is the legal community." "The news is also being spread that such Amendment will include a requirement of fresh oath for superior court judges. This is a transparent attempt to intimidate the few judges left who are yet to surrender their conscience at the feet of the government. It is identical to the PCO oaths invented by General Zia and General Musharraf for this very purpose and any civilian and legal/judicial collaborators in this martial-law exercise shall surely be remembered in the same terms as Sharifuddin Pirzada and Abdul Hameed Dogar," the statement further read. "In any event, to the extent the learned IHCBA President has announced support for constitutional amendments that would allow High Court and Lower Court judges from Islamabad to be transferred and posted in the different provinces (with or without their consent); the Karachi Bar Association considers this not only an attack on judicial independence but an attack on federalism and the autonomy and independence of provincial judiciaries." "Let there be no doubt, the lawyers of Sindh strongly reject and shall resist, by any means necessary, any attempt to reintroduce martial-law and impose this judicial One-Unit scheme upon the Federation of Pakistan," the association warned.
Gulf Today
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
It's time for age limits for members of Congress
Nathan L. Gonzales, Tribune News Service In a country bitterly divided on virtually everything, from the major to the mundane, there's one issue that could unite Republicans and Democrats: age limits. An uncomfortable conversation about the acuity of aging politicians, from Republicans Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Thad Cochran of Mississippi to Democrats Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Dianne Feinstein of California, has only been magnified by former President Joe Biden's years in office and former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's closing time on Capitol Hill. Then there's former Texas Rep. Kay Granger, now 82, who was discovered by The Dallas Express staying at an assisted living facility toward the end of her House term as she dealt with what was later reported as 'dementia issues.' San Francisco Democrats made news recently over a proposed resolution to call politicians in California to voluntarily retire at an age to be determined later. But the country and Congress should consider something more permanent, specific and restrictive. One of the first criticisms of any suggestion about age limits on elected officials is usually discrimination — the idea that you can't discriminate against candidates based on their age. But the Constitution already does so, with age minimums. Members of the House have to be 25 years old, (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). Members of the Senate have to be 30 years old (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3). And presidents have to be 35 years old (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5). So the age discrimination argument shouldn't even be a part of the conversation. Considering the general bias toward the perceived wisdom of the Founding Fathers, a critic could say that the framers who included an age minimum would have included age maximums if they had wanted. But life expectancies were considerably different more than 200 years ago. The average life expectancy was closer to 40 years in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. And even though the first six presidents served into their mid-to-late 60s, the Founding Fathers couldn't have fathomed elected officials serving into their 80s and 90s. At 81, Benjamin Franklin was 15 years older than any other signer of the Constitution. Today, he wouldn't rank among the top 10 oldest members of Congress. At a time when Congress can barely agree on a framework for when to reach an agreement, passing a constitutional amendment seems particularly ambitious. A constitutional amendment must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states with an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. There's been only one constitutional amendment passed in the past 50 years. The 27th Amendment, first submitted in 1789, was ratified in 1992 and effectively said that any raise Congress votes to give itself can't take effect until after the next election so constituents can decide whether they deserve it. (The 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 years, passed in 1971.) There could be some initial pushback from Republicans because age limits might be seen as a shot at the current 78-year-old resident of the White House and his ability to do the job. And there's the challenge of asking current members of Congress to limit their own tenures in Congress. So there might have to be some sort of provision to grandfather in (or, in some cases, to great-grandfather in) sitting lawmakers to exempt them from the new restrictions. That would leave us waiting a long time for the fruits of such an effort to be seen. But that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile endeavour. While longtime incumbents often rouse strong feelings of loyalty and deference, it's hard to imagine that lawmakers who work beside elderly colleagues believe it's in the best interest of their constituents and the country for them to serve into their golden years. A considerable majority of Americans are open to this idea. More specifically, 82 percent of Republicans and 76% of Democrats support a maximum age limit for elected officials, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center poll. But landing on a specific maximum age might be more difficult than the daunting task of passing a constitutional amendment: 85 years old? 80? For some reference points, senators in Canada, who are appointed and not elected, have a mandatory retirement age of 75. In the Catholic Church, only cardinals younger than 80 can participate in a papal conclave to choose the next pope. Just 1% of S&P 1500 companies have a CEO age 78 or older, which is interesting considering the gravity of work lawmakers have to do on Capitol Hill. The average age for an S&P 1500 CEO is 58, which is close to the median age of a House member (57.5) in the 119th Congress, according to Pew. The median age for a senator is 64.7. But that masks some of the oldest members, including Iowa's Charles E. Grassley (91), Vermont's Bernie Sanders (83), McConnell (83), Maine's Angus King (81), Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal (79), Vermont's Peter Welch (77), Hawaii's Mazie K. Hirono (77) and Oregon's Ron Wyden (75). Idaho's Jim Risch (81), Massachusetts' Edward J. Markey (78) and Rhode Island's Jack Reed (75) have announced they'll seek reelection in 2026. New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen (78) bowed out recently and will soon be joined in retirement by Richard J. Durbin (80) of Illinois. In the House there are 41 members age 75 or older, with Dina Titus of Nevada and Donald S. Beyer Jr. of Virginia joining them in the next couple of months. The eldest members include Harold Rogers of Kentucky (87); Maxine Waters (86), Nancy Pelosi (85), Doris Matsui (80) and John Garamendi (80) of California; Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland (85); James E. Clyburn of South Carolina (84); Danny K. Davis (83) and Jan Schakowsky (80) of Illinois; John Carter of Texas (83); Frederica S. Wilson of Florida (82); Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut (82); Virginia Foxx of North Carolina (81); Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri (80); and Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey (80). Critics of age limits might say that institutional knowledge is important to a functioning Congress. But how's that working out? Elderly wisdom doesn't seem to be helping smooth things along these days. And there are plenty of members younger than 70 who know how things work. Of course, the precise amendment language would have to be worked out, perhaps by focusing on age when taking office. An official age 70 or older can't be sworn in, for example. That benchmark would have affected only three presidential inaugurations: Biden in 2021 (78) and Trump in both 2017 (70) and 2025 (78). It would have kept West Virginia Republican Jim Justice, 73, out of the Senate, and it would shake up next year's Senate race in Maine, which features GOP Sen. Susan Collins, 72, and potentially Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, 77. Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, who hasn't ruled out a Senate run next year, would be 69 in January 2027 if he happened to run and win. Rather than a constitutional amendment, some folks plan to use elections to force elderly members into retirement. Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg committed to spending $20 million through his outside group, Leaders We Deserve, to help younger, progressive challengers win primaries against older incumbents in safely Democratic districts. And younger primary challengers have already popped up this cycle against Pelosi, Schakowsky, Georgia Rep. David Scott (79) and others. Going by history, most of these efforts will fall short. And some people will deem it a vote of confidence in the elderly and a refutation of young people. But in reality, it will have more to do with the powerful advantages of incumbency, including name ID and fundraising. Considering the huge hurdles to be overcome, I realize that this column might have been written in vain. But if a C paper written by a 19-year-old college student could propel the 27th Amendment to be ratified after 200 years, then there's a chance the country could finally get it right on age limits.
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Can Donald Trump run for a third term? President said he's 'not joking' about another run. What to know
President Donald Trump told reporters Sunday, March 30, that he's "not joking" about running for a third term in the oval office. Trump commented on a third term during a telephone interview with NBC news, saying "there are methods" for how he could stay in power. However, a run for a third presidential term is unconstitutional. The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, puts a term limit on presidential power in the U.S. But that doesn't seem to be stopping Trump. He has made several comments about a third term during his first few months back at the white house. In February, the official White House social media platforms portrayed Trump as a monarch. "Long live the king," the post declared. Just one day after the post, Trump asked supporters at a White House reception, "Should I run again?" 'A lot of people want me to do it,' Trump said in a phone interview. "But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it's very early in the administration." The simple answer: No. Under the current constitutional safeguards, Trump cannot seek a third presidential term. Trump could try to pass a new constitutional amendment. This would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate, or two-thirds of state legislatures can call a constitutional convention. Then, three-fourths of the state legislatures would have to ratify the amendment. It's an intentionally difficult process that was last done in 1992 when the 27th Amendment was enacted. Asked by NBC whether he has been shown plans that would allow him to seek a third term, Trump said: "There are methods which you could do it," including Vice President JD Vance running for president and then giving the role to Trump, according to USA TODAY reporting. Yes, it is clearly outlined in the 22nd Amendment that a person serving as president can only hold the office twice. Here's what it says: "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." The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951, according to the National Constitution Center. The idea of term limits came about from Republicans after President Franklin D. Roosevelt won four consecutive elections. His presidency started in 1933 during the Great Depression and spanned over 12 years until his death on April 12, 1945, during his fourth term. It took nearly four years for the amendment to be ratified though. Not in writing. America's first president, George Washington, set an unofficial precedent when the first elections in the United States were happening. Washington only served as president twice, declining multiple times to serve a third term. In later years, Washington's decision to not seek a third term was seen as a safeguard against the type of tyrannical power wielded by the British monarchy during the Colonial era. According to the National Constitution Center, the concept of term limits was discussed at the Constitutional Convention when America was first founded but not added to the Constitution at that time. Only a handful of people have sought a third term as president before the 22nd Amendment was ratified. Ulysses S. Grant tried for a third term in 1880, but he lost the Republican Party nomination to James Garfield Grover Cleveland lacked party support for a third term Woodrow Wilson hoped a deadlocked 1920 convention would turn to him for a third term Theodore Roosevelt originally passed on running for a third term in 1908, but would later run as third-party candidate in 1912 after a fallout with then-President William Howard Taft. Roosevelt beat Taft, but both lost to Woodrow Wilson. Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously won not three, but four presidential elections, breaking the long-held tradition of two terms. While several predecessors had sought a third term, FRD was the only person to win four consecutive elections. FDR served as president from March 4, 1933, until his death on April 12, 1945. He led the country through the Great Depression and World War II. As a result of FDR's unprecedented four terms, the 22nd Amendment was ratified, which limited all future presidents to two elected terms, according to the National Archives. USA TODAY reporter Riley Beggin contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Could Trump run again? President says it's no joke. What to know
Yahoo
28-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Yes, a GOP Representative Introduced a Constitutional Amendment to Let Trump Run Again
Several social media posts claim that a Republican congressman proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow Donald Trump to run for president again in 2028. 'BREAKING: Republican Congressman Andy Ogles has drafted a constitutional amendment to allow Donald Trump to be president for a third term,' reads one Threads post. 'A Tennessee Republican Proposes An Amendment To Allow President Donald Trump To Run For A Third Term,' reads another on Instagram. The claims are true. Last week, Rep. Andy Ogles proposed an amendment that would do just that. On January 23, Ogles—a second-term Republican representing Tennessee's 5th District—introduced a joint resolution that would allow a president to serve a third term if they had not yet served two consecutive terms in office. Trump, whose first and current terms were non-consecutive, would thus be allowed to run for a third term in the future. Presidents are presently limited to serving only two terms in office by the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The full text of the proposed amendment's article reads: 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, 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 twice.' The joint resolution would need to receive a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate before the proposed amendment could be sent to the states for ratification. Three-fourths of the states would then need to approve the amendment before it could become law. No constitutional amendments have been ratified in the U.S. since 1992 when the 27th Amendment—which was initially proposed in 1789 and which prevents congressional representatives from voting for immediate pay increases—was ratified following a decade-long nationwide campaign. If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@ If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@
