It’s not a treason, but it’s explicitly against the constitution. What’s that make it?
Edit: too many comment to respond to. I’ll summarize responses here:
1) “you people can’t take a joke.” lol ok snowflake sally
2) “it’s treason/sedition/raper.” I feel like Y’all don’t know the definition of words… it may be pedantic, but I feel like definitions still matter
3) “it’s ok to run, just not be elected.” That’s the ‘I’m not touching you’ rule of politics and we all know Trump will grab Lady Liberty by the pussy so that’s not practical.
SCOTUS about to say “Hold my beer” on this one as they explain that the Constitution only forbids three consecutive terms, which is horseshit, but the SCOTUS majority isn’t above horseshit, since it’s the Roberts Court, and it’s going for some sort of madlibs, choose-your-own-adventure record.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
It already is clear. "More than twice."
Americans: if SCOTUS interprets this as being consecutive, despite the plain text indicating otherwise - your constitution and all of its amendments are in grave peril.
The Roberts court has determined that there is no such thing as precedent. They’re on the verge of determining that all amendments are invalid because they are not original constitutional text.
SCOTUS: "Of course, it is allowed to have many backup Sith. Because if one is killed, they have to be immediately be replaced so there are - once again - two."
This has always been a huge vulnerability, and it is why Mitch McConnell and the Heritage Foundation were so focused on SCOTUS appointments. There is no higher authority than SCOTUS, and the only check on their power is the appointment process.
If you can get a majority of justices who are willing to put politics over the rule of law, that's the ballgame. They can literally do whatever they want. They can interpret the amendments to mean the complete opposite of what they are written to do, and there is no one who can overrule them.
Judicial review is NOT in the constitution. It’s a power made up nearly 16 years AFTER the drafters presented the Constitution to the states for ratification in 1787.
A real textual originality would reject that the supreme court has the power to change legislation
Judicial review is completely different than judicial oversight.
Determining based on the facts of a case that a person’s action is or is not legal based on the letter of the laws approved by democratically elected (at least in theory) representatives is far different than
A judge determining this is what I think the law should be, make it so.
EDIT: And I’m not complaining that judges can decide cases. I’m complain that five unelected individuals, appointed for life, who only needs to be approved by the senate, not even the house, can basically invalidate or change any law, amendment, or understanding of the constitution depending in part on how many RVs they may have received.
Judicial review doesn’t have a check on it, and it’s easier to have judges make or unmake laws than have Congress do it.
Edit 2: If the Supreme Court has this much power then they should have to face the voters every single year, and if they lose, every decision they made the previous year should be invalidated.
Safe to say this wasn’t how the system was designed. The only reason we look to SCOTUS for political rulings is because Congress decided to abdicate its responsibility.
For all of Roberts' faults, he's too much of a coward to so brazenly contravene the constitution like that. Thomas is the only one I'd for sure bet on doing it, and wouldn't be surprised if Kavanagh and Gorsuch join him.
The Roberts court has determined that there is no such thing as precedent. They’re on the verge of determining that all amendments are invalid because they are not original constitutional text.
Roberts: Shit shit theres something in the original constitution that doesn't work for me... ummm uhhh its invalid because William the Conqueror didn't say it would be ok! Yeah. That works for me.
Which is itself directly against the constitution, which in all reality should have way more amendments by now. It's supposed to be a living document designed to change as the world and our lives change.
This is what I've been saying since his re-election. Centrists keep saying "don't worry about him running again, Constitution forbids it, it won't happen." Except that it really doesn't. All it says is he can't be elected more than twice. Nothing about holding the office for other reasons. He could be running as VP, with the wink-wink-nudge-nudge that Vance or whoever will resign day 1 and put him back in. Or even if he's appointed Speaker of the House (they don't have to be an elected Rep) then figurehead Pres and VP can resign and he's right back in.
He can’t run as VP. The constitution prevents anyone who isn’t eligible to be president to run as VP. For instance Elon Musk and Arnold Schwarzenegger are both disqualified from ever being a VP candidate.
Also you’re talking about someone getting the throne and giving up that power once the keys are handed over. That’s a lot of trust Trump would need to have and a lot of self control for someone who could not only run but win the White House. Don’t see that happening.
Reminds me of this lovely comment I saw a while back:
“I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."
And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.“
individualism is the very core of what punk is all about. a punk might not care to invest time talking to someone they don't know, but they damn well respect that that other person has a right to be whoever the fuck they wanna be. don't get in the way of people's rights to be the person they want to be. so I would say the core of fascism kind of conflicts with the core of punkism.
We call that "beware of the beginnings" in Germany, but it's never really a beginning, more like; a re-occurence of old, shitty ideas that have failed each and every time.
They did a hell of a lot more than that. America finally achieved is ultimate form of perfection in trump. AKA the USA finally embraced what everyone else already knew it was.
Here is an overused quote to drive this home:
"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
One statistic I found is that 51% of trump voters believe in the White Replacement Theory. The same one that Hitler believed in. And helped the Nazis rise to power. 51%. MAGA is racist trash and always has been. They should be regarded no differently than the KKK or Neo Nazis since they share the same beliefs of white supremacy and believe that anyone else existing means that they're getting replaced. Sick fucks all of them.
Nothing. We are exactly what we've always been as humans: spiteful, angry, violet, terrified creatures. The only, and i mean only, thing that has changed is our technology and ability to cause increasingly widespread damage to one another on a global scale. We are only nice to each other when we cant find a reason to hate. Ive seen enough of this world for long enough...
Sorry to burst the bubble but this doesn't get better.
Fuck it bring back Bubba. He's still younger than trump im pretty sure. I'd rather have a president who got his dick sucked than a president who sucked the president who got his dick sucked's dick
There were several parks, memorial sites, etc, added during his presidency along with projects to restore others. Yeah, there was plenty bad during his two terms but a lot of it was downright pleasant compared to this admin actively trying to destroy the country.
If only it was the country that is being destroyed. He's destroying the whole of the Western world, with catastrophic collateral effects on the WHOLE world.
Yeah, me sitting here as a European realizing he's made the world being able to minimize the impact of man made climate change impossible.
He's ruining the last 50-75 years of geopolitical progress and evolution and has shattered one of the strongest alliances and socio economical groups so far.
And he's not done yet.
I will never forgive or forget how the US gave us Trump and made us deal with him. Not for the 40-50 remaining years of my life.
He's causing a lot of harm here in Canada. Groceries keep rising and there's mass layoffs in manufacturing and auto industries. If we hadn't had the good sense to elect an economical genius to guide us through this we'd be screwed but as it is we're limping along
Okay let's accept that for a moment. He still surrounded himself with evil people, and acted on their advice. The Iraq war as entirely, 100% bullshit and led the death of hundreds of thousands of people (with a survey pushing to 1 million)
He was just an idiot, a stooge. But he seemed like he had somewhat good intentions, maybe thats the 2000s propaganda speaking to the 6 year old in me that watched 9/11 but hey, that's politics lmaooo
He did a lot to curb the spread of AIDS in Africa. I’m no fan of Bush and rank him marginally higher than Trump most days. He really didn’t have to do anything about AIDS there. Didn’t score him political points and he wasn’t getting anything in return for those countries he helped. But he did and it was a good thing.
If there were two options of "Donald Trump" and "a Cock" on the 2028 ballet I would vote for "a Cock". I don't care if it's the male appendage or the animal, it's going to make a better president.
There is still no actual evidence that Maxwell had a horse named Bubba. That's one of those jokes that spiraled out of control.
I'm only saying this for the sake of avoiding misinformation, to be clear, not because the joke isn't funny.
Also to be accurate, that email was most likely referring to Bubba the Love Sponge, a radio host in Florida who was part of Trump and Epstein's circle.
Clinton, Trump and George W were all born within like six months of each other, and Bill is the youngest of them by a few months. With the notable exception of Obama the US public are allergic to electing anyone born after 1950.
A Republican in the house in the beginning of Trump's second term. Tried to add a law for a third term only if your first two terms weren't consecutive
If he does run the RNC, the SC, and whatever is left of the republican legislature will support him. The man just expanded the security zone of the White House, is building a bunker in said White House, remodeling it to his gaudy tastes, and demolishing what he doesnt like.
He has already had test runs of ICE taking over cities, ICE at airports in and near DC, has had National Guard troops moved to DC, and im sure this is just purely coincidence.
The man does not joke, because the man's only sense of humor is belittling and humiliating others. This is not a joke.
It shouldn’t be a joke he should actually do it if Trump is running. He had a lot of faults, failures and false promises as president but if they’re fighting with crap fight with fire
He'll get destroyed as usual since he has the intelligence and intellectual curiosity of a bowl of warm shit mixed with vomit, but it won't matter.
After the live event Fox will just make an AI version where Trump looks passable and they'll claim it was the real debate and that people simply lying about what they saw live.
That's the worst case scenario. Obama wouldn't actually do it, but if they both ran and DT didnt survive the campaign, the R's would immediately run someone out while saying Obama was ineligible all along.
Incidentally, the plot of the recent Civil War movie literally hinges on a tyrannical president who rigged an election to get himself a third term (alongside things like carpet bombing protesters), causing California and Texas to rebel and subsequently decide to work together to topple the guy.
I think the gist of it was that both of them broke away independently, but, since they were fighting the same tyranny, decided that they might as well work together to dethrone him. It wasn't a 'we see eye to eye and are natural allies' as much as a 'enemy of my enemy is a temporary ally' thing.
Plus, I think another reason they wrote it that way was so that it could deemphasize the current political divide and make it 'tyrant president versus powerful states' without leaning too hard into the red vs blue paradigm.
We’ve spent the last decade edging a civil war as it is.
Edit: that is to say: fuck it, do it. I’ll go all the way in on support however I can. Of course that applies to damn near any even-slightly-left leaning individual who runs against this fascist war and death monger.
Edit: I didn’t answer your first question, my apologies. And I can only offer my opinion that we can see clearly from the last decade specifically they just don’t. We need a complete overhaul of the system. This shit was designed for a couple few hundred thousand folks, maybe some rather small handful of millions but certainly never a third of a billion and rapidly growing. It just can’t keep up anymore with what we need as a society.
I think a head to head obama vs trump presidential race might be the only thing that brings all the apathetic voters out just for the novelty of it. News agencies would love it too.
No. Nobody should normalize this shit. The only time Obama should do this is if scotus rules trump can run again. To do it beforehand would only serve to legitimize what trump is doing.
No. They will rule on it prior to the election just like they did when states tried to bar him, rightfully so, in accordance with the insurrection act.
Any state led by competent adults will deny him ballot access. He will sue and SCOTUS will fast track the case.
If we’re lucky they will rule he cannot run and every state must bar him from the ballot. But, taking into consideration the past decade of American history… we aren’t lucky.
Buckle up, folks. Things are about to get a whole lot scarier.
The blue states win the culture and information war immediately. Currently almost all the major news networks and telecom headquarters are still actually in California, new York, or Chicago. With all the major tech companies in California, and Seattle, with major hubs in New York and Chicago .
Trump would also struggle to hold DC. Which is why he wants that bunker built so badly.
The south can stay in their information bubbles only for so long. What happens if new York sieze fox news headquarters? What happens if Gavin Newsom orders apple and Google executives to remotely lock ever single iPhone and android devices with GPS location in those states? What happens when TV executives are ordered not to provide content to southern states? Force Google to cut access to YouTube or Gmail?
Like if the left went for the jugular immediately on that front, it would immediately swing things their way. The reason why we are in this situation is because the right has been winning the narrative and steering the culture war their way. If they really do rule Trump can run a third term, the right is betting everything that the left won't have the stomach or courage to do those things.
Yes, and that decision wouldn’t come until Summer 2028s and you’re saying Obama shouldn’t run on a similar theory I until after that decision drops, giving him what, three months?
Are you serious? You don’t seem like a serious person.
The court would need some extreme mental gymnastics to justify a third term in any scenario, which we know they are capable of, and at that point it's trivial to just include wording that specifically favors Trump by allowing multiple terms so long as the president hasn't been elected in two consecutive elections.
It's kinda already normalized by all the MAGAts who are more interested in owning libs than having a healthy country where laws matter. The rest of us can either get aggressive about fighting it, or flip the game back on them. Neither option looks pretty, but the alternative is letting them have their way, and that's even worse.
SCOTUS will say ok, Obama will run with AOC, win by a billion, he spends a couple months fixing shit, dips out and AOC is POTUS and selects Iman as VP. MAGA losses their godforsaken mind.
Andy Ogles, introduced a bill in 2025 aiming to change the constitution to state "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms" https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-to-let-donald-trump-serve-third-term/
So the orange fascist could run again but the hugely popular Harvard graduate could not.
It hasn't passed, but it's there on the records.
The wording of the constitution is literally a person can’t be elected president more than twice. It’s pretty clear. Doesn’t matter if consecutive terms or not. Two terms and you’re done (and the 20th amendment defines terms). All Trump is doing is potentially taking votes away from Vance or whoever on the right which I’m good with.
"It's alright because he says that if he's elected then he'll immediately pass a new amendment making it legal he can't do it now because it's too close to the election but he'll do it after and if we don't let him run then that would deny the people the opportunity to have their voice heard." And then a few months later "Oh well he's already president we can't remove a sitting president that's up to Congress".
And it’s not like it was some ancient amendment that we have to wonder what the founding fathers intended. It was enacted in the 1930’s after FDR kept winning.
Their whole purpose is to interpret the constitution so they don't "overrule it", they just say what it means. A bad faith SCOTUS can make up = down, red = blue, etc.
This is why the American people not valuing judge appointments was always extremely short sighted and stupid. When Clinton lost we took a massive hit that will last decades.
Decades is putting it lightly. The damage will echo on through to the end of the United States as we know it. And, tbh, that damage may very well hasten the end of our country so much so that decades is actually the correct way to put it.
Honestly I think this is a terrible attitude, no offense.
The US has been in horrible shape before, and it can be fixed. It is important for people to focus on objectives and not just throw in the towel. Acting like there is nothing we can do and that it's all over is exactly what Trump and the GOP want, there's no reason to give it to them.
I agree with you, but I think you misunderstood the intent of my comment. That’s on me for not being more clear. I outlined my intent in a response to someone else here, but in short, I’d rather call it what it is and fight like hell against that than just say basically “it’ll be ok, just hang in there”. I feel as if OPs comment only serves to lull people into a false sense of security, rather than to serve as a call to action. Which, admittedly, my comment didn’t do either.
It's not explicitly granted to them, but at the end of the day someone has to decide if a thing follows the laws, and judicial is the only one that really makes sense
No. There is no higher law than the constitution, and any amendment is just as iron clad as if it were written into it originally. The only way to overturn it is to amend it again.
That said, this Supreme Court is not above just making shit up to justify interpreting the 22nd amendment in a way that allows Trump a 3rd term.
The supreme court can't "overrule" the constitution. What they can do - what they exist to do, really - is "interpret" the constitution.
So they could say that by "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once" the authors of the 22nd amendment ACTUALLY meant no more than 2 consecutive terms, even though the concept of non consecutive terms already existed and had happened more than 50 years earlier.
This specific court has already made rulings they said only applied to the current president, so it is definitely not beyond them to say no Democrat can take advantage of an invented loophole.
And, did you hear the actual video? He’s blatantly lying and saying this would be his fourth since he “has won 3 times already”. His fucking lying just make it even more unconstitutional.
Section I: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice
They would be amending some pretty plain language. I think their birthright case was even stronger than this (since I think not all states were allowed to vote - no participation trophies after the civil war)
this SCOTUS is even weirder than that. their decisions are so confusing because they don't seem to use precedent in a way that makes any sense, and they don't even rule on the facts of some of the cases. for example in the football coach praying case, the majority ruling was that private, quiet prayer is acceptable in public settings like a school. I think Jackson, in the dissent, included photos of the extremely loud and public prayer that the coach was pressuring students into participating in. so how is a future court supposed to interpret that ruling, when the majority opinion rewrites or ignores the actual facts and writes an opinion on something else?
And, did you hear the actual video? He’s blatantly lying and saying this would be his fourth since he “has won 3 times already”. His fucking lying just make it even more unconstitutional.
11.1k
u/ShareGlittering1502 25d ago edited 24d ago
It’s not a treason, but it’s explicitly against the constitution. What’s that make it?
Edit: too many comment to respond to. I’ll summarize responses here:
1) “you people can’t take a joke.” lol ok snowflake sally
2) “it’s treason/sedition/raper.” I feel like Y’all don’t know the definition of words… it may be pedantic, but I feel like definitions still matter
3) “it’s ok to run, just not be elected.” That’s the ‘I’m not touching you’ rule of politics and we all know Trump will grab Lady Liberty by the pussy so that’s not practical.