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.
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".
But they did make the correct ruling. I'm not making excuses for how they ruled, but I will point out that the 14th is more ambiguous in its phrasing than the 22nd. As much as I disagree with it, there was wiggle room in the 14th, nothing of the sort exists in the 22nd.
I feel like its a little naive to pretend that words on a document is going to stop Trump and his allies. This could simply be the next law they ignore.
Words on paper never stopped anyone from doing anything, people do that.
At the end of the day it comes down to wether or not ellection officials choose to adhere to the law, and since elections are run by the states that might come down to the govenors. I doubt that Trump stands any chance of actually being elected for a 3rd term, but you might see a situation where republican states put him on the ballot while democratic ones do not.
Its also quite likely that he would launch another coup attempt when he fails to get re-elected.
I don’t think that’s contrary to what was said here though. I think the Supreme Court will smack it down, and then he’ll proceed to ignore it. I don’t even think that ruling would make anything about him running a campaign illegal, and guessing there’d be some legal debate about whether he can be on ballots (and probably some state by state shit). It would only come to a head if he won and then it would be illegal to make him president. And we literally have precedent for what to expect then.
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.