XPost: alt.politics.elections, alt.politics.republicans, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics

Let me start off by saying I don’t think Donald Trump’s offhand remarks
about seeking a third term as president are very helpful. Heck, I cringed
at the news that Trump 2028 merch is for sale in Trump’s official online
store.

Maybe it’s just trolling. I didn’t like it when Obama joked about a third
term, either. The 22nd Amendment explicitly limits presidents to two
terms, and Trump’s rhetoric, often delivered with a provocative smirk,
doesn’t look good.

That said, with the courts persistently blocking Trump from exercising the powers of the presidency, does he have a point about needing more time to govern?

If a president is elected but not allowed to enact their agenda, what’s
the point of elections? If district court judges can overrule executive authority, then no president, Republican or Democrat, really is the chief executive; are they? The problem is that no president has faced more
nationwide injunctions than Donald Trump, and it seems as if every day,
we’re getting a new, unprecedented ruling that undermines executive
authority.

These injunctions aren’t just procedural hurdles; they effectively neuter
the executive branch’s ability to function. Presidents are elected to
execute a vision, yet Trump has been repeatedly hamstrung by unelected
judges that have been hand-selected by activists to get the result they
want. As such, the argument for a third term—while constitutionally dubious—almost seems fair when you consider the cumulative impact. If
Trump’s lawful orders are perpetually blocked, the democratic mandate is undermined. Why elect someone if their authority is nullified by endless lawsuits? Trump’s supporters argue he’s been denied the full scope of his presidency, and they’re not entirely wrong.

Recommended: WATCH: Scott Jennings Brings Reality Check to Judge Dugan's
Arrest

The pattern of judicial overreach raises questions about fairness. When district courts issue nationwide injunctions, they effectively set policy
for the entire country, a role traditionally reserved for Congress or the Supreme Court. The judiciary’s increasing activism risks eroding the
separation of powers, leaving presidents like Trump in a bind: govern aggressively and face lawsuits, or do nothing and betray voters.

So does Trump legally deserve a third term? No. The Constitution is clear
on that point. But if the Supreme Court doesn’t step in soon to rein in
the growing lawlessness of the lower courts, I’m going to end up ordering
one of those Trump 2028 hats myself.

At some point, we have to be honest: if district court judges can
endlessly hamstring a sitting president’s ability to govern, then the presidency itself becomes little more than a ceremonial position. And if
this weaponized judicial activism isn’t stopped now, you can be sure the
next Democratic president will face the exact same treatment. It’s not a
matter of if—it’s when.

I may not like Trump’s rhetoric about a third term, but the underlying frustration—that he was elected to lead, only to be tied down at every
turn by activist courts—is completely understandable. The real danger
isn’t Trump’s words; it’s a system that increasingly allows unelected
judges to override the will of the American people. If the courts continue functioning as a de facto veto on executive authority, the argument for
taking extraordinary measures only gets stronger.

The real solution isn’t a third term. It’s a serious reform of the
judiciary to restore the constitutional balance of power. Until that
happens, Trump’s provocations are going to keep resonating with millions
of Americans who see what’s happening and know it can’t go on like this forever.

The judicial activism against presidential authority affects us all.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/04/26/maybe-trump-does-deserve-a- third-term-n4939263

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)