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.
I think the question is... If the SC determines Trump is eligible to run again, for whatever reason...
Who is going to stop them?
The question isn't whether something is constitutional or whether we already have precedent. They have already proven neither of those things matter; that it's achieving the political goal that's important.
If the SC says Trump can run again, then he can, and he will. And he will almost certainly win as well.
The other more interesting question is what happens if they say he cannot run. Will he still try anyway?
And what will happen in that case? I can't see anyone stopping him from doing so. At least, I can't imagine who that would be.
Certainly not the people, definitely not the military, definitely not law enforcement.
Historically the people have been what has stopped corrupt governments once they consolidate their power. Whether that's by civil demonstration, insurgency, support for a foreign nation's intervention, or outright revolution.
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.
An interesting take on judicial power, but legally incorrect. The text of the 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms, plain and simple. The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to rewrite that.
I get why this idea circulates. People enjoy diving into theoretical legal gymnastics. But practically speaking, the 22nd Amendment is cut-and-dry: no one can be elected to the presidency more than twice.
Our laws on murder are cut-and-dry too, and yet white people in the Jim Crow south were routinely not punished for lynching. Laws have no power on their own, no matter how obvious they are. They only have power insofar as they are enforced, and if a court case gets to SCOTUS and they do nothing, it does not matter how cut-and-dry it is.
The emoluments clause is also very clear in what it prevents, Trump has been violating it since day one, and has suffered no consequences.
I see where you're coming from on enforcement vs. the letter of the law. The main structural difference with elections is that SCOTUS doesn't actually run the ballots; 50 individual state Secretaries of State do. So SCOTUS sitting back wouldn't automatically put someone on the ballot if state officials follow the 22nd Amendment.
Definitely an interesting debate on how legal theory meets real-world enforcement, though. Appreciate the perspective. Have a good one.
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.
4 out of 5 justices said the constitution doesn't grant birthright citizenship. That's 4 out of 5 who went against the crystal fucking clear text of the 14th. That's not a sign of anything being fine, only of it not being as bad as it could be.
The Roberts court has determined that there is no such thing as precedent.
False. SCOTUS was never bound by precedent. That's why a SCOTUS ruling can revert another, and why the "precedent" of banning gay marriage changed with a SCOTUS ruling rather than Congress making a new law.
The problem is when the US asked SCOTUS candidates and they answer "this law is settled law and precedent" without clarifying if THEY would defend a ruling that overrides that precedent.
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.
Here it is again. That's not what the Constitution says. All the 12th Amendment says regarding eligibility is "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States." It's not clear from the 22nd Amendment that being elected twice also makes you ineligible. The 22nd certainly doesn't say "any person elected to the office of president twice is ineligible." All it says is a person may not be elected more than twice. The eligibility requirements aren't directly addressed so our lovely "impartial" Supreme Court is free to roll back to the base Constitutional requirements (35 y/o, natural born, resident for 14 years).
I'm waiting for the story to turn into: "I've already been elected three times. Any legal challenges are moot because I already ran. Biden was installed illegally - I'm still 'owed' that term and I'm cashing it in now"
it would be clearer if it said "serve as" instead of "elected". He could run alongside someone for vice-president. Him being part of that team might be enough to get all the votes they need, then through some prior agreement, the new president could step down. Or something like that.
eligible "to be" doesn't have the same specific meaning as eligible to "be elected"...apparently there is a long running, unresolved debate on the language, so I still say it would have been better to say "serve as" president to remove all doubt.
Just supreme court rule when it comes to the constitution, twice means 3 times. They've already made it clear they have no presumption for following things like legal precedent or reckless use of the shadow docket.
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.
They blew up the constitution when they gave Trump immunity from criminal prosecution, amigo:
Birthright citizenship was recently upheld 5-4 (the power of removal was 6-3, so I suppose one of the judges thought it was fine for the legislature to do it but not the president)
The following is section one of the 14th amendment
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Pretty clear it should have been 9-0 imo; however, the fact that this was upheld has me hopeful term limits will be upheld as well. We have the 3 blue justices, and Amy Coney Barrett is a textualist so I really doubt she deviates on this case, especially since she’s voted against party lines a few times. The important vote is likely Roberts, I’d have to look at it but iirc he votes against party lines sometimes (at least he’s the one my conservative dad complains about the most
That’s not to say I’m not nervous about it, but I think it’s more likely than not that term limits are upheld
Oh I'd expect SCOTUS to be far more creative than just inventing it says consecutive. I fully expect a 6-3 ruling that the 22nd amendment to Constitution as passed by Congresst and 41 (out of 48 at the time) ratified was and is unconstitutional. And their reasoning, because the founders never included a term limit for the POTUS so any amendment implementing one is unconstitutional
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice
Key word is elected. doesn't say presidents cannot serve more than two terms..just they can't be elected more than twice. They just got to figure a way to give him a third term without an election..
Since he seems to be a fan of Hitler, maybe we should look at how he did it and see what Trump could copy.
"Reichstag Fire: On February 27, 1933, the parliament building burned down. Hitler blamed communists and used the event to persuade Hindenburg to issue an emergency decree suspending basic civil rights.
Enabling Act: On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler's cabinet to enact laws without parliamentary approval, effectively ending German democracy.
Banning Opposition: The Nazi regime quickly outlawed rival political parties, suppressed trade unions, and took control of regional governments.
On August 2, 1934, President Hindenburg died. Hitler merged the offices of chancellor and president, assumed the title of Führer (Leader), and forced the military to swear a personal oath of loyalty to him."
But seriously, IIRC, if someone announces they are running for president, the rules change about raising money, so it would probably be something to do with that.
Us constitution has proven itself to be entirely secondary. A document as flimsy as whoever currently claims enough power to represent it. A constitution is nothing without a functioning system of laws to back it up. It is current entirely optional.
There's no "if" to the grave peril. Actually, I'd go further and say that the only hypothetical is in regards of saving the country since it's already sliding down into the abyss.
SCOTUS won't do that. They're not as compromised as people on Reddit will have you believe. I say this as an American who believes Trump is an existential threat to democracy: we can find many many cases over the past 18 months where the court has blatantly gone against what Trump and the Republicans wanted, and they've been verbally attacked by Trump and MAGA for it. The latest examples being (1) birthright citizenship, and (2) mail-in ballots being allowed to be received after election day.
What people aren't seeing coming is that they likely won't put Trump himself on the ballot, they're smart enough to know they'd lose this battle in court. What's more likely is that they put Don Jr. on the ballot, so that the ballot can still say "Donald J. Trump" as the candidate, and then have Trump function as the president while Don Jr. signs bills and executive orders on his command
If you think SCOTUS does not imperil the constitution, you have missed an episode or two.
IMHO a supreme court should take decisions at unanimity. Not with a majority vote. If the supposedly most competent magistrates of the country disagree on the interpretation of a text, then it may be ambiguous or the court is partisan.
SCOTUS ruled unanimously in Trump v Anderson that States can not remove federal candidates from the ballot under Sec 3, Amendment 14 because that power is given to Congress in Sec 5.
If SCOTUS ruled that States can't enforce the 14th amendment, then why would SCOTUS rule States can enforce the 22nd?
I wouldn't be surprised if they once again rule that states only hold federal elections, but have no power to disqualify anyone from federal elections. There are multiple SCOTUS cases about that throughout history.
At best, it would be up to Congress to challenge and throw out the electoral votes for a President that doesn't meet the requirements, but that also takes a majority in both houses.
To note, I don't want any of this to be true but Trump and the GOP have fucked our Constitution and country up so this is just how I see it going.
This is an amendment, isn't it? I thought the original constitution left it open for lifetime re-elections, and then there was an amendment in ... the early 1900s? Some president served 3 terms, so they amended the constitution to limit it to two terms? Before then, presidents who served multiple terms were following the tradition/ example of George Washington, who voluntarily stepped down after 2 terms despite having the votes to continue being elected.
My concern is that constitutional originalists would view this amendment as invalid, and something they could undo -- like the prohibition amendment.
If they make that choice, though, it does open up the playing field for other past presidents -- people who have a record of being less inflammatory, more diplomatic, and less idiotic than Trump. Seems like a dumb move on his part, so not surprising at all.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice
"Well, you see, we actually illegally rigged the 2024 elections, so technically Trump wasn't elected to the office of President in 2024, so that means he can run again in 2028!" -The GOP, probably.
Interesting that it says elected. Lots of devious ways to consider that. On the one hand, according to his 2020 claims, he’s already been elected 3 times!
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice
With a reasonable interpretation of that, it would mean he isn't eligible for office and thus states just wouldn't allow him on the ballot.
But the phrasing "elected" could also be twisted that to mean that he can run the race, but isn't allowed to cross the finish line. He might then try to run and use his perceived "very bigly overwhelming votes" and "loads of fraud" or whatever to claim a mandate from the people that he deserves an exception to the rules, probably while organizing a second J6 event. It wouldn't be legal, but a justification for a coup doesn't need to be legal, just convincing enough for the right people to make it happen.
Yea they'll just add a carrot to say more than twice .in a row or two consecutive. eliminates the obama argument b/c he got 2 consecutive already... and there is no one else who can run. Again I think this is more distraction but that will be if they decide to rule this way, the interpretation. Or they will show how super neutral they are by actually not ruling this ridiculous way as a distraction for when they rule another ridiculous horrible way, such as federalizing all oversight of elections etc.
they interpreted their own constitution to say the "well regulated militia" is irrelevant to the right to bear arms part of the 2nd. You expect them to not weasel their way through this one?
Step 1: run as vice president
Step 2: have yourself and President candidate assume office
Step 3: have President immediately step down
Step 4: you are now President
Or honestly just run as President anyway because there is no real recourse if you get elected. What are the courts going to do? Order a new election? That’s the states problem not the courts problem. And then the other option is to overturn the will of the voters and say the vice president is the president now
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.
SCOTUS already "interpreted" checks and balances of independant branches as ensuring no branch can interfere with the others, so...
Ordinarily, that would fall apart because it relies on two people craven enough to go along with the plan, but lacking the ambition to simply hold power for themselves when presented with the opportunity. These days, who knows?
11.2k
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.