The American Conservative put out a ridiculous article written by Peter Tonguette titled “Trump 2028” with the heading, “The Twenty-second Amendment is an arbitrary restraint on presidents who serve nonconsecutive terms and on democracy itself.”

The piece is a clear example of conservative principles being muddied with radicalism with the rise of President Trump and the MAGA movement. Here, we will examine and respond to what Tonguette had to say – point by point.

First, it is mentioned that 70 years ago in 1951 when the Twenty-second Amendment was ratified, no one could have foreseen the prospect of someone losing office after one term and then gaining it back after one election term. This premise ignores the historical context which is so important.

While the author does make mention that the amendment was a response to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served more than two terms, what he failed to acknowledge is the fact that until FDR there was no other president who broke tradition by serving more than 2 terms.

But most important of all, the term limits set on the presidency serve their intended purpose which is to work as a balance of power and a preventative measure against dictatorial and tyrannical leadership in the United States. And the fact that the consequences of repealing the 22nd amendment were not even considered, speaks to a deification of a man who himself is a stark example of why we need such barriers in place. After all, Trump did mention that he would love to be a dictator, albeit just for a day.

Second, Tonguette claims that republicans haven’t moved on from Trump and the 22nd amendment works to constrain their enthusiasm by prohibiting them from rewarding Trump with reelection 4 years from now and that it is unfair. But again, the very point of the amendment is to be certain that the monopolization of power is not possible.

And this radical idea that Trump is so special that we need to amend the constitution for the sake of his interest, sets a dangerous precedent as it undermines the stability and integrity of constitutional order. On top of all of that, this mention of what is fair and unfair is a childish appeal to emotion disguised as a moral argument.

Last, and most importantly is the claim that there is longstanding support for “axing” the 22nd amendment because it puts artificial limits on voter choice and that popular presidents have agreed. Tonguette leans on selective evidence by mentioning President Obama and President Reagan who both were in support of repealing the 22nd amendment.

But what of Thomas Jefferson’s wise words from his letter to the New Jersey legislature in 1807 where he specifically stated, “but that I should lay down my charge at a proper period, is as a much duty”” and that “if some termination to the services of the Chief magistrate be not fixed by the constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally for years, will, in fact, become for life; and history shews how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.”

Does this not contradict each premise Tonguette uses to conclude that the 22nd amendment is undemocratic? Clearly it does. Specifically, Jefferson’s words explain that it’s not about artificial limits on voter choice, but rather real limits on federal powers.

In conclusion, the bottom line is that the founding fathers intended for the federal powers to be limited and checked – as evident from James Madison in Federalist Paper No.51 where he stated, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” In the same article, Madison goes on to explain that you must oblige the government to control itself. And for these reasons, repealing the 22nd amendment actually makes no sense if you want to maintain our democracy, and ensure that dictatorial rulership is not possible.