Allowing a Third Term for Donald Trump While Excluding Barack Obama

By Brian Figeroux | Editorial credit: ZB Photos / shutterstock.com 

In January 2025, Congressman Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) introduced a proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to permit former President Donald Trump to seek a third, non-consecutive term. Notably, the proposed amendment includes a clause that would prevent former Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush from running again, as they each served two consecutive terms. This proposal has sparked significant debate regarding its constitutional validity and potential civil rights implications. 

Constitutional Considerations – The 22nd Amendment

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1951, limits individuals to two elected terms as president. Specifically, it states: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…” This amendment was enacted following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four-term presidency to formalize the two-term tradition. 

Proposed Amendment Details

Congressman Ogles’ proposal seeks to modify the 22nd Amendment to allow a president to serve up to three terms, provided they have not served two consecutive terms. This change would enable Donald Trump, who served non-consecutive terms, to run again. However, it would exclude former presidents who have served two consecutive terms, such as Obama, Clinton, and Bush. 

Amendment Process

To amend the Constitution, the proposal must secure a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures. This rigorous process ensures that only amendments with widespread support are adopted. 

Civil Rights Implications – Equal Protection Concerns

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment mandates that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By crafting an amendment that permits a specific individual (Donald Trump) to run for a third term while excluding others (Obama, Clinton, Bush), the proposal raises concerns about unequal treatment under the law. This selective applicability could be perceived as a violation of the principle that laws should apply uniformly to all individuals, regardless of political affiliation or past service. 

Potential for Political Bias

The proposal’s design appears tailored to benefit a particular individual while disadvantaging others based on their political history. This could set a concerning precedent where constitutional amendments are used to favor or disfavor specific individuals or groups, undermining the impartiality that is foundational to the rule of law.

Historical Context and Precedents – Term Limits in U.S. History

The two-term limit for U.S. presidents was a tradition established by George Washington and remained unchallenged until Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four-term presidency. The subsequent ratification of the 22nd Amendment codified this tradition into law. Over the years, there have been discussions about repealing or modifying the 22nd Amendment, but none have been successful. 

Previous Attempts to Amend Presidential Term Limits

Since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment, multiple attempts have been made to repeal or modify it. For instance, between 1997 and 2013, Representative José E. Serrano introduced nine resolutions to repeal the amendment, all of which were unsuccessful. These efforts highlight the challenges inherent in altering presidential term limits and the importance of broad consensus for such significant constitutional changes. 

Public and Political Reactions – Support and Opposition

Proponents of the amendment argue that it recognizes the unique leadership qualities of certain individuals and provides flexibility in presidential tenure. However, critics contend that it undermines democratic principles by creating exceptions tailored to specific individuals, potentially eroding public trust in the constitutional framework.

Legal Challenges

If the amendment were to gain traction, it would likely face legal challenges on grounds of equal protection and potential violations of democratic norms. Courts would need to assess whether the selective criteria for eligibility constitute unconstitutional discrimination or if they serve a legitimate governmental interest.

Conclusion

The proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow a third term for Donald Trump, while excluding former presidents who have served two consecutive terms, presents complex constitutional and civil rights issues. The selective nature of the amendment raises concerns regarding equal protection under the law and the potential for political bias. As the nation continues to navigate these discussions, it is imperative to uphold the principles of fairness and equality that are central to the American constitutional system.