Consecutive

Consecutive (pronounced kuhn-sek-yuh-tiv)

(1) Following one another in uninterrupted succession or order; successive without interruption.

(2) Marked or characterized by logical sequence (such as chronological, alphabetical or numerical sequence).

(3) In grammar & linguistics, as “consecutive clause”, a linguistic form that implies or describes an event that follows temporally from another (expressing consequence or result).

(4) In musical composition, a sequence of notes or chords which results from repeated shifts in pitch of the same interval (an alternative term for “parallel”).

1605-1615: From the sixteenth century French consécutif, from the Medieval Latin cōnsecūtīvus, from the Latin cōnsecūtus (follow up; having followed), from consequī (to pursue) & cōnsequor (to travel).  The construct was consecut(ion) + -ive.  Consecution dates from the early fifteenth century and by the 1530s was used in the sense of “proceeding in argument from one proposition to another in logical sequence”.  It was from the Middle English consecucioun (attainment), from the Latin consecutionem (nominative consecution), noun of action from the past-participle stem of consequi (to follow after), from an assimilated form of com (in the sense of “with, together”) + sequi (to follow (from the primitive Indo-European root sekw- (to follow).  The meaning “any succession or sequence” emerged by the 1650s.  The Latin cōnsecūtiō (to follow after) was from the past participle of cōnsequor (to follow, result, reach).  The –ive suffix was from the Anglo-Norman -if (feminine -ive), from the Latin -ivus.  Until the fourteenth century, all Middle English loanwords from the Anglo-Norman ended in -if (actif, natif, sensitif, pensif et al) and, under the influence of literary Neolatin, both languages introduced the form -ive.  Those forms that have not been replaced were subsequently changed to end in -y (hasty, from hastif, jolly, from jolif etc).  The antonyms are inconsecutive & unconsecutive but (except in some specialized fields of mathematics) “non-sequential” usually conveys the same meaning.  Like the Latin suffix -io (genitive -ionis), the Latin suffix -ivus is appended to the perfect passive participle to form an adjective of action.  Consecutive is a noun & adjective, consecutiveness is a noun and consecutively is an adverb; the noun plural is consecutives.

In sport, the most celebrated consecutive sequence seems to be things in three and that appears to first to have been institutionalized in cricket where for a bowler to take three wickets with three consecutive deliveries in the same match was first described in 1879 as a “hat trick”.  Because of the rules of cricket, there could be even days between these deliveries because a bowler might take a wicket with the last ball he delivered in the first innings and the first two he sent down in the second.  A hat trick however can happen only within a match; two in one match and one in another, even if consecutive, doesn’t count.  Why the rare feat came to be called “hat trick” isn’t certain, the alternative explanations being (1) an allusion to the magician’s popular stage trick of “pulling three rabbits out of the hat” (there had earlier also been a different trick involving three actions and a hat) or (2) the practice of awarding the successful bowler a hat as a prize; hats in the nineteenth century were an almost essential part of the male wardrobe and thus a welcome gift.  The “hat trick” terminology extended to other sports including rugby (a player scoring three tries in a match), football (soccer) & ice hockey (a player scoring three goals in a match) and motor racing (a driver securing pole position, setting the fastest lap time and winning a race).  It has become common in sport (and even politics (a kind of sport)) to use “hat trick” of anything in an uninterrupted sequence of three (winning championships, winning against the same opponent over three seasons etc) although “threepeat” (the construct being three + (re)peat) has become popular and to mark winning three long-established premium events (not always in the same season) there are “triple crowns).  Rugby’s triple crown is awarded to whichever of the “home countries” (England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales) wins all three matches that season; US Horse racing’s triple crown events are the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes and the Belmont Stakes.

Graham Hill (1929–1975) in BRM P57 with the famous (but fragile) open-stack exhausts, Monaco Grand Prix, 3 June 1962.  Hill is the only driver to have claimed motor-racing's classic Triple Crown.

The term is widely used in motorsport but the classic version is the earliest and consists of the Indianapolis 500, the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the Formula One (F1) World Drivers' Championship (only one driver ever winning all three) and there’s never been any requirement of “consecutiveness”; indeed, now that F1 drivers now rarely appear in other series while contracted, it’s less to happen.

Donald Trump, a third term and the 22^nd Amendment

Steve Bannon (left) and Donald Trump (right).

Although the MAGA (Make America Great Again) team studiously avoided raising the matter during the 2024 presidential election campaign, now Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) is President elect awaiting inauguration, Steve Bannon (b 1957 and a one the most prominent MAGAs) suggested there’s a legal theory (that term may be generous) which could be relevant in allowing him to run again in 2028, by-passing the “two-term limit” in the US Constitution.  Speaking on December 15 at the annual gala dinner of New York’s Young Republican Club’s (the breeding ground of the state’s right-wing fanatics), Mr Bannon tantalized the guests by saying “…maybe we do it again in 28?”, his notion of the possibility a third Trump term based on advice received from Mike Davis (1978, a lawyer who describes himself as Mr Trump’s “viceroy” and was spoken of in some circles as a potential contender for attorney general in a Trump administration).  Although the 22^nd Amendment to the constitution states: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, Mr Davis had noted it was not explicitly written that this applied only to “consecutive” terms so as Mr Bannon confirmed, there was hope.  Warming to the topic, Mr Bannon went on to say :“Donald John Trump is going to raise his hand on the King James Bible and take the oath of office, his third victory and his second term.” (the MAGA orthodoxy being he really “won” the 2020 election which was “stolen” from him by the corrupt “deep state”.

Legal scholars in the US have dismissed the idea the simple, unambiguous phrase in the 22^nd amendment could be interpreted in the way Mr Bannon & Mr Davis have suggested.  In the common law world, the classic case in the matter of how words in acts or statutes should be understood by courts is Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers (1891) AC 107, a bills of exchange case, decided by the House of Lords, then the UK’s final court of appeal.  Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers was a landmark case in the laws relating to negotiable instruments but of interest here is the way the Law Lords addressed significant principles regarding the interpretation of words in statutes, the conclusion being the primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intention of Parliament as expressed in the statute and that intention must be derived from the language of the statute, interpreted in its natural and ordinary sense, unless the context or subject matter indicates otherwise.  What the judgment did was clarify that a statute may deliberately depart from or modify the common law and courts should not assume a statute is merely a restatement of common law principles unless the statute's language makes this clear.  The leading opinion was written by Lord Herschell (Farrer Herschell, 1837–1899; Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain 1886 & 1892-1895) who held that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it should be interpreted as it stands, without assuming it is subject to implicit common law principles; only if the language is ambiguous may courts look elsewhere for context and guidance.

So the guiding principle for courts is the words of a statute should be understood with what might be called their “plain, simple meaning” unless they’re not clear and unambiguous.  While the US Supreme Court recently has demonstrated it does not regard itself as bound even its own precedents and certainly not those of a now extinct UK court, few believe even the most imaginative of the nine could somehow construe a constitutional amendment created for the explicit purpose of limiting presidents to two terms could be read down to the extent of “…more than twice…” being devalued to “…more than twice in a row…”.  Still, it was a juicy chunk of bleeding raw meat for Mr Bannon to throw to his hungry audience.

The ratification numbers: Ultimately, the legislatures of 41 of the then 48 states ratified the amendment with only Massachusetts and Oklahoma choosing to reject.  

What the 22^nd amendment did was limit the number of times someone could be elected president.  Proposed on 21 March 1947, the ratification process wasn’t completed until 27 February 1951, a time span of time span: 3 years, 343 days which is longer than all but one of the other 26, only the 27^th (delaying laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives) took longer, a remarkable 202 years, 223 days elapsing between the proposal on 25 September 1789 and the conclusion on 7 May 1992; by contrast, the speediest was the 26^th which lowered the voting age to 18, its journey absorbed only 100 days between 23 March-1 July 1971.  While not too much should be read into it, it’s of interest the 18^th Amendment (prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcohol within the US) required 1 year, 29 days (18 December 1917-16 January 1919) whereas the 21^st (repealing the 18^th) was done in 288 days; proposed on 20 February 1933, the process was completed on 5 December the same year.

The path to the 22^nd amendment began when George Washington (1732–1799; first president of the United States, 1789-1797) choose not to seek a third term, his reasons including (1) a commitment to republican principles which required the presidency not be perceived as a life-long or vaguely monarchical position, (2) the importance of a peaceful transition of power to demonstrate the presidency was a temporary public service, not a permanent entitlement and (3) a desire not to see any excessive concentration of power in one individual or office.  Historians have noted Washington’s decision not to seek a third term was a deliberate effort to establish a tradition of limited presidential tenure, reflecting his belief this would safeguard the republic from tyranny and ensure no individual indefinitely could dominate government.

AI (Artificial Intelligence) generated images by Stable Diffusion of Lindsay Lohan and Donald Trump having coffee in the Mar-a-Largo Coffee Shop. 

For more than a century, what Washington did (or declined to do) was regarded as a constitutional convention and no president sought more than two terms.  Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; US president 1901-1909), celebrating his re-election in 1904 appeared to be moved by the moment when, unprompted, he announced: “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination” and he stuck to the pledge, arranging for William Howard Taft (1857–1930; president of the United States 1909-1913 & chief justice of the United States 1921-1930) to be his successor, confident he’d continue to pursue a progressive programme.  Taft however proved disappointingly conservative and Roosevelt decided in 1912 to seek a third term.  To critics who quoted at him his earlier pledge, he explained that “…when a man at breakfast declines the third cup of coffee his wife has offered, it doesn’t mean he’ll never in his life have another cup.”  Throughout the 1912 campaign, comedians could get an easy laugh out of the line: “Have another cup of coffee”? and to those who objected to his violating Washington’s convention, he replied that what he was doing was “constitutional” which of course it was.

Puck magazine in 1908 (left) and 1912 (right) wasn't about to let Theodore Roosevelt forget what he'd promised in 1904.  Puck Magazine (1876-1918) was weekly publication which combined humor with news and political satire and in its use of cartoons and caricatures was something in the style of today's New Yorker.

Roosevelt didn’t win the Republican nomination because the party bosses stitched thing up for Taft so he ran instead as a third-party candidate, splitting the GOP vote and thereby delivering the White House to the Democrats but he gained more than a quarter of the vote, out-polling Taft and remains the most successful third-party candidate ever so there was that.  His distant cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, US president 1933-1945) was the one to prove the convention could be ignored and he gained not only a third term in 1940 but also a fourth in 1944.  FDR was not only a Democrat but also a most subversive one and when Lord Halifax (Edward Wood, 1881–1959; British Ambassador to the United States 1940-1946) arrived in Washington DC to serve as Ambassador, he was surprised when one of a group of Republican senators with whom he was having dinner opened proceedings with: “Before you speak, Mr Ambassador, I want you to know that everyone in this room regards Mr Roosevelt as a bigger dictator than Hitler or Mussolini.  We believe he is taking this country to hell as quickly as he can.”  As a sentiment, it sounds very much like the discourse of the 2024 campaign.

"The Trump Dynasty has begun" four term coffee mugs (currently unavailable) created for the 2020 presidential campaign. 

The Republicans truly were appalled by Roosevelt’s third and fourth terms and as soon as they gained control of both houses of Congress began the process of adding an amendment to the constitution which would codify in that document the two-term limit Washington had made a convention.  It took longer than usual but the process was completed in 1951 when the 22^nd Amendment became part of the constitution and were Mr Trump to want to run again in 2028, it would have to be repealed, no easy task because such a thing requires not only the concurrence of two thirds of both the House of Representatives & Senate but also three quarters of the legislatures of the fifty states.  In other countries where presidential term limits have appeared tiresome to those who have no intention of leaving office the “work-arounds” are usually easier and Mr Trump may cast the odd envious eye overseas.  In Moscow, Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) solved the problem by deciding he and his prime-minister temporarily should swap jobs (though not authority) while he arranged a referendum to effect the necessary changes to the Russian Constitution.  The point about referendums in Russia was explained by Comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) who observed: “it matters not who votes, what matters is who gets to count the votes.”  Barring accidents or the visitation of the angel of death, Mr Putin is now set to remain as president until at least the mid-2030s.  

Some mutual matters of interest: Donald Trump (left) and Vladimir Putin (right).

There have been many African presidents who have "arranged" for constitutional term limits to be "revised" but the most elegant in the handling of this was Pierre Nkurunziza (1964–2020; president of Burundi 2005-2020) who simply ignored the troublesome clause and announced he would be standing for a third term, tidying up loose ends by having Burundi's Constitutional Court declare the president was acting in accordance with the law; it would seem the principle of Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers wasn't brought before the court (formerly part of the empire of Imperial Germany and later a Belgian-administered territory under a League of Nations mandate, Burundi follows the civil law tradition rather than the common law inheritance from the old British Empire).  Shortly before the verdict was handed down, one judge fled into exile, claiming the government had applied "pressure" on the court to deliver a ruling favorable to the president.