A Third Term?

Published: February 3, 2025

On January 23, 2025, Representative Andrew Ogles (R‑Tenn.) introduced House Joint Resolution 29, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow a person to be elected president up to three times【29126456628951†L169-L184】. Under the proposal, presidents who have served two consecutive terms would still be barred from seeking a third term, effectively carving out an exception for Donald Trump, who did not serve consecutive terms and could therefore run again in 2028【29126456628951†L178-L185】.

The resolution highlights a tension between ambition and restraint. Since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, presidents have accepted the two‑term limit as a safeguard against entrenched power. Constitutional scholars Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt warn that departures from this norm are “unwise, unpatriotic and fraught with peril to our free institutions,” as quoted in the Democratic Erosion Consortium’s February 2025 briefing【65427109828409†L96-L104】.

Historical precedent suggests the amendment is unlikely to pass. More than 12,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789, but only 27 have been ratified【29126456628951†L199-L212】. Amendments must win two‑thirds approval in both chambers of Congress and be ratified by 38 states — an intentionally steep climb【29126456628951†L214-L238】. In recent decades, proposed amendments ranging from a balanced budget to term limits for members of Congress have stalled long before reaching ratification【29126456628951†L214-L219】.

Why term limits matter

Term limits protect democracy by preventing any one person from accumulating too much power. They encourage leadership renewal and create space for new voices. Efforts to make exceptions for favored candidates erode the principle that no individual is indispensable. The norm of institutional forbearance — the self‑imposed restraint that prevents officials from using legal but dangerous powers — is a pillar of liberal democracy. When politicians start rewriting the rules to benefit themselves, they send a signal that power matters more than principle.

A challenge and a choice

Representative Ogles’s resolution is unlikely to succeed, but it illustrates the growing willingness to test constitutional limits. As citizens, we must pay attention to these maneuvers and respond not with outrage but with resolve. Support civic education that explains why term limits exist. Push your representatives to reject any amendment that opens the door to limitless leadership. Remind your community that democracy is not a spectator sport: we must guard it together【819044182704204†L169-L206】.

Echoing the “We Rise” call to stand, we remember that silence is not unity; it is surrender【819044182704204†L169-L178】. The promise of America was never “Trust the powerful,” but “We the People”【819044182704204†L287-L301】. In that spirit, let us rise to defend the guardrails that keep power in check.