The ill-considered impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump have seriously interfered with his first term as president. Thus, argues constitutional scholar William Mattox in The Wall Street Journal, if acquitted, Trump should be eligible for a third term, notwithstanding the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment.
Mattox deploys a sports analogy: In the National Football League, teams can challenge a call on the field but theres a risk. If instant replay doesnt merit overturning the call, the challenging team loses one of its three timeouts. That discourages frivolous challenges and keeps the game flowing, while also providing a way to reverse egregious errors.
Hence, a third term for the president: That would allow him to make up for the time lost advancing the agenda that voters elected him to enact. It would preserve impeachment for genuine offenses but discourage its use for disputed ones and for mere politics. Absent such an amendment, and in an era when government is divided more often than not, impeachment seems likely to become an increasingly common means of opposition.
Under the 22nd amendment, an individual who fills an unexpired presidential term lasting greater than two years is also prohibited from winning election as president more than once
He has a point, it would be a deterrent from it happening again...rather than a precedent.
That is without a doubt the most idiotic argument I have ever hear.