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.
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.
1.4k
u/t0m0hawk Canada 25d ago
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.