don't worry about the third-term rhetoric—read the article for this

Headline:

Maybe Trump Does Deserve a Third Term

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.

This is a point that was made early on when the judicial activism started: what allows the judiciary to arrogate to itself the powers of the executive?

I did a search of the following concept: constitutional justification for judicial activism.

AI result:

Judicial activism, while controversial, can be constitutionally justified when it acts as a safeguard against majority tyranny or when the legislative and executive branches fail to address injustices or promote needed social change. Proponents argue that the judiciary's power of judicial review, as established in Marbury v. Madison, allows the court to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional, thereby protecting individual liberties and preventing the abuse of power by the elected branches. 

Elaboration:

Safeguard against tyranny:
Judicial activism can be seen as a necessary check on the power of the majority, ensuring that democratic processes don't lead to the oppression of minorities or the infringement of fundamental rights.

 

Addressing legislative failures:
When the legislative and executive branches are unwilling or unable to address injustices or promote necessary reforms, judicial activism can act as a last resort to correct these failures, as noted by Ballotpedia. 

 

Interpreting the Constitution:
Some argue that the Constitution's ambiguous language requires the judiciary to make informed and reasoned interpretations, which may involve expanding the scope of constitutional rights or addressing contemporary issues, as explained by The Heritage Foundation. 

 

Checks and balances: 

The judiciary, with its limited direct accountability to the electorate, can serve as a vital check on the power of the other two branches, ensuring a more balanced and just government, according to Wikipedia. 

Notice that the AI doesn't cite a single word of the Constitution. It plunges right into the argument. However, changing the search string to

constitutional justification (citation from the US Constitution) for judicial activism

gives interesting results. More later.