I mean this—you know, I mean this somewhat harshly. For the love of God, election lawyers, stop conceding that this “well he could run as VP” scheme is textually permissible. It is an absurd way to read the amendment. The Constitution is not a suicide pact; it also isn’t a finicky computer program - ThreadSky

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social • 58 days ago

I mean this—you know, I mean this somewhat harshly. For the love of God, election lawyers, stop conceding that this “well he could run as VP” scheme is textually permissible. It is an absurd way to read the amendment. The Constitution is not a suicide pact; it also isn’t a finicky computer program

Reposted from Andy Craig

As much as I hate it, I do think the text of 22A + 12A allows this. It would never work in a free and fair election, but they have no intention of having a free and fair election in 2028, and what's left of civil society and the rule of law will be in ashes if he's still in power by then.

Comments

jordanlowrance.bsky.social•58 days ago

The analysis is also bullshit, to be clear

desiderratum.bsky.social•57 days ago

Right, and if it doesn't prevent a scheme like that, then it's a powerless amendment, so very clearly that was not the intent with which it was written

ttlfb.bsky.social•58 days ago

“It doesn’t say a dog can’t play basketball” ahh lawyers

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social•58 days ago

In my profession’s defense, Craig is not a lawyer. Though I wouldn’t use that as a cudgel against him: he does have a meaningful background in election law. But he’s still wrong.

glocks4interns.bsky.social•58 days ago

Should certainly be a cudgel when he attempts textual interpretation of the constitution

formertwtruser.bsky.social•58 days ago

Thank you. This is an important data point that I was not aware of. I agree that non-lawyers can bring a lot to the table in legal discussions (e.g., Lyle Denniston). But if I were seeking medical advice, I'd still want a licensed doctor to be providing it.

readingcabbage.bsky.social•58 days ago

Everyone knows the real concern with the 22nd amendment was people winning election too many times, not serving too many terms, right?

samposting.bsky.social•58 days ago

“Ineligible”, as in “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President”first and foremost means “can’t be chosen”. *Especially* as a matter of legal tradition, it straightforwardly encompasses “unelectable”

usspcrichardandson.bsky.social•58 days ago

not particularly analogous but I am reminded of Rick Hasen arguing at the time that McDonnell wouldn't be that bad of a decision because it didn't technically legalize bribery

andycraig.bsky.social•58 days ago

He's disqualified under the 14th regardless. But the 22nd question is something that's been discussed long before the context of Trump. I was convinced then that's what the text actually says. To also be somewhat harsh, it would be dishonest to say otherwise just because I don't like the result.

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social•58 days ago

I think that is an insane way to read the amendment; regardless if you honestly came to the view before Trump. It is the epitome of the worst excesses of the textualist interpretive regime.

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social•58 days ago

If the 11th amendment can mean what SCOTUS says it means in spite of its text, then the 22 amendment certainly means that no one can be president 3 times

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social•58 days ago

Interpreting statutes in this stupid tortured way. Sure, whatever. We can change those. But constitutions aren’t just words, and they aren’t over literal computer programs; they’re principles.

jamsamcam.bsky.social•58 days ago

Christian nationalists reading the constitution like it’s the bible

rev-avocado.bsky.social•58 days ago

We can also see what the original public meaning was quite easily given that it's from the 1940s and we have newspaper archives.

bananapantz.bsky.social•58 days ago

At least for the moment.

I assume the bonfire for them is planned.

andycraig.bsky.social•58 days ago

There is not much in the way of contemporary evidence on this particular question, unfortunately, but the 22nd itself plainly draws the distinction between being "elected" and "holding" the office, for its rule about partial terms. They obviously knew using "elected" for the latter wouldn't work.

andycraig.bsky.social•58 days ago

This is the same kind of unmoored vibes-not-words thinking that leads to stuff like "14AS3 was obviously only about the Civil War" and "POTUS has the unlimited power to fire anybody he wants because he has 'the executive power.'"

Elected president means elected president, it's not ambiguous.

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social•58 days ago

It is not “vibes.” Believing the Constitution cannot be abolished by “one weird trick” is not believing in vibes; it is in keeping with the entire history of scotus interpretation of constitutional provisions

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social•58 days ago

it is much less obvious that the 11th amendment denies the right of a state citizen to sue the state in fed court. And yet!

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social•58 days ago

It is much less obvious that the constitution affords the judiciary the right of judicial review. And yet!

andycraig.bsky.social•58 days ago

I do think there are colorable arguments in the other direction, but "screw the text it doesn't matter" isn't one of them.

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social•58 days ago

the text of the constition uses the word “he” to describe the president and there is evidence that “he” was not being used generically at rhe time of the founding (if you read the statutes of the first Congress, they use “he” for male roles, and “he or she” for laws that apply to all people)

bill-of-lefts.bsky.social•58 days ago

Does this mean that the president must be a man? Did the 19th amendment change this? Bc its text doesn’t say anything about the right to hold office

andycraig.bsky.social•58 days ago

That would be an actual example of word games absurdity because there is a longstanding history, well predating the Constitution, of not construing gendered pronouns that way if there's no explicit statement of a sex-based restriction. The word "elected" plainly means "elected" in any other context.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply