Democrat moves to clarify the 22nd Amendment after Trump refers to running for third term
Democrat moves to clarify the 22nd Amendment after Trump refers to running for third term
Summary
Rep. Daniel Goldman plans to introduce a resolution clarifying that the Constitution’s two-term limit for presidents applies even if terms are non-consecutive, aiming to close any perceived loophole after Donald Trump joked about seeking a third term.
While unlikely to advance under Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, Goldman’s resolution underscores Democrats’ concerns over Trump's repeated comments about serving beyond two terms, which some view as "anti-democratic and authoritarian."
Goldman urges bipartisan support to uphold the 22nd Amendment, amid fears that some Republicans might not view Trump’s statements as mere jokes.
You're viewing a single thread.
God fucking dammit. When you start a process like this it gives credence that the ammendment doesn't prohibit non-consecutive terms.
Fuck! This asshole is giving ammunition to Trump.
Yeah, I agree. This was a bad idea. The text is quite clear that no person shall be elected to be President more than twice. Simply introducing it as a "clarification" will give the impression that clarification is necessary. It's not.
Republicans can't do anything to fix this (legally) other than to amend the Constitution. Let's see what illegal shit they try, though.
Republicans can’t do anything to fix this (legally) other than to amend the Constitution. Let’s see what illegal shit they try, though.
Who's gonna do anything about it? It's not illegal if the people making an enforcing the laws say it's legal.
The States can and will. Recall that there were a few states that tried to take Trump off the ballot this time around, that case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that states couldn't use that specific clause to keep Trump off the ballot. Furthermore, that decision was unanimous, although the Liberal judges released their own opinion saying that they disagreed with some aspects of the decision.
It will be a lot harder for even this court to weasel it's way around the language in that amendment. And it will get there quickly. The minute Trump announces another candidacy every state that is not totally MAGA will immediately refuse to put him on any ballot due to his ineligibility.
The States can and will. Recall that there were a few states that tried to take Trump off the ballot this time around, that case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that states couldn’t use that specific clause to keep Trump off the ballot. Furthermore, that decision was unanimous, although the Liberal judges released their own opinion saying that they disagreed with some aspects of the decision.
So by your own admission, the states already tried to remove Trump under the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court said that the 14th amendment was unenforceable because reasons. The Supreme Court that also said Trump can do whatever he damn well wants in office and can't even be questioned about it, much less prosecuted for it. But when they use virtually the same logic to say the 22nd amendment doesn't matter either, you think that's where a Supreme Court 1/3 appointed by Trump himself is going to draw the line?
Oh, you sweet, sweet summer child.
The states already tried to keep Trump off the ballot via the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court took a giant shit on it. And the states did fucking nothing. And you think things are going to change when they just use the same playbook with the 22nd?
It will be a lot harder for even this court to weasel it’s way around the language in that amendment.
What makes you think the court has to weasel their way around anything? They've got full control. The only reasoning they need is "Because fuck you that's why". People didn't do shit about it when Roe was struck down. People didn't do shit when the SC said Trump is all but a king. People ain't gonna do shit if the SC says "fuck the 22nd, let him run anyway."
If you think that the American public gives half a shit, I'll simply reply by gesturing broadly at the results of the 2024 election.
And it will get there quickly. The minute Trump announces another candidacy every state that is not totally MAGA will immediately refuse to put him on any ballot due to his ineligibility.
And the Supreme Court will tell them to sit down and shut up, and they'll comply just like they did last time. And if they try to ignore the court, good luck getting the population to consider the election legitimate.
The 14th amendment approach did have some legitimate issues with it. If it worked, then I am convinced Abbott would have invoked some bullshit "Biden is creating an invasion at the border" excuse to remove Biden from the ballot. That's why the decision ended up unanimous.
The 22nd amendment's text is a whole lot clearer, and far less subject to interpretation. I can see a State saying "I don't even need the Supreme Court to weigh in on this one". And if it does come up with some tortured logic, I can see a State telling it to go to hell, because the one thing it can't
focusdo is rewrite the Constitution.And if it does come up with some tortured logic, I can see a State telling it to go to hell, because the one thing it can’t focus rewrite the Constitution.
And this is where your logic falls apart. This would have been a correct statement on or before November 4, 2024. It is no longer correct. We are in TrumpWorld now. The rules as we knew them no longer matter, and can and will either be rewritten or outright ignored.
Trump doesn't have to rewrite the Constitution. He just has to use the same logic with the 22nd amendment as they did with the 14th: It is simply too vague and not enforceable. If Trump says that, and Congress passes a bill saying that, and the Supreme Court says "Yeah, fuck the 22nd amendment.", and a bunch of MAGA state governments say that, then guess what?
I mean sure, some states could go their own way and not put him on the ballot. But (a), good luck getting people to consider that election legitimate, (b) They probably wouldn't be enough to swing the election anyway, and (c) the MAGA congress could just as easily set those states aside entirely because reasons.
Thinking that a man is going to play by the rules when he's using the rulebook as toilet paper while being cheered on by voters is probably not going to go the way you think it will. Especially when that man has already seized enough power to rewrite the rulebook at will anyway.
Either they ignore the Amendment or they don't. Even if SCOTUS unanimously said it's not possible Donald J Trump doesn't take "No" for an answer. His entire take on being President is, "It's not illegal if nobody stops you from doing it."
Laws dont matter anymore because they wont be enforced. We're flatly ignoring the leahy laws now and no one bats an eye because almost every congressman on both sides and the judiciary have been bought by AIPAC. They will continue to buy and own them all from here on out, so the president is never going to be impeached, and we cant sue the president-- thats a duty of congress. So its over. We are living in a banana republic. It was sold to the highest bidder and it'll stay bought.
There's a similar sort of tussle going on in Canada. In Canada abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom but given the shit going on in the US there have been discussions about passing a law to absolutely for sure double enshrine it. However the opinion from Supreme Court jurists among others is that passing a law guaranteeing it may weaken the protections because it'd move it from a universally recognized freedom to a law someone could reverse if the wrong party took power.
It's a really interesting discussion up here because that was essentially the state of affairs in the US (though Roe was a weaker ruling than our understanding up here) until yall had an activist Court that said "Fuck it" and acted illegally. So the question is "is it more likely for us to get chucklefucks in the legislature or the court, and if we're really clear about not passing a law because it's inherently accepted as a human right can we prevent it."
We do have a significant chucklefuck crowd in Canada (thanks American cultural export) so it's a concern but abortion access is extremely popular up here so it hasn't been turned into a wedge issue. (We do have stupid bullshit over trans rights, the environment, and indigenous sovereignty, though - in Canada all the scary stereotypes America has against black people and Mexicans are instead directed at Native Americans).
This isn't about needing clarification though. Like you said, clarification is not necessary. This move is about being able to wave this amendment around in front of everyone, and publicly force Republicans to agree on its meaning, ahead of Trump ignoring it.
I don't see this as being completely a bad move but I am not a legal expert. I also won't call it a good move, but it will force the hand of the Republicans who wish to ignore this law into publicly stating as much. This would have been a lot more effective earlier though I think.
God fucking dammit. When you start a process like this it gives credence that the ammendment doesn’t prohibit non-consecutive terms.
Fuck! This asshole is giving ammunition to Trump.
Actually, no.
This process started when the Supreme Court essentially ruled that the 14th amendment to the Constitution was unenforceable, allowing Trump to even run in the first place. Once you say that amendments can just be hand-waved away, then the Constitution itself stops being the Supreme law of the land, and just becomes a really old piece of paper with guidelines that can be ignored if they become inconvenient. The exact same rationale used to discard the 14th amendment could just as easily be used to discard the 22nd amendment. Or the 19th. Or the 13th. Or the first 10. Just write it off as "too vague and incompatible with modern society to be enforceable" and voila.
In all fairness, it does specify that no person can be elected to president more than twice, full stop. Unfortunately, it does leave open two loopholes. 1) He, while president, manages to coerce the skipping or elimination of elections and he just gets another term without an election. 2) He runs as VP for another person (no limit there) and assume the presidency when their lacky dies, retires, etc. Or he just uses them as a puppet from the VP spot.
Doesn't being ineligible for president also make you ineligible for VP?
The 22nd amendment says that they can't be elected to "The office of President". No mention in the amendment of the Vice Presidency. And the term limit definitely doesn't apply to one's terms as VPs if they later become President. Else George HW Bush and Biden couldn't gave run for president after their two terms as VP each. No reason to think it applies in reverse, that presidential terms count against VP terms. Obviously, it could be argued that VPs are in the line of succession for President, and are thus ineligible after they served two terms, but it would have to be argued. It's not explicit. Also I doubt it would work because that would also exclude them from every single other role in the line of succession. That seems overbroad.