bad case of being lawyer-brained, I’m afraid. The clear meaning of the 22nd is to put a 2 term limit on the presidency, in accordance with the norm established by Washington. This alternative reading is lawless and if it happens, we might as well say the Constitution is no longer in effect.
Reposted from
Mark Joseph Stern
Chatted with @dahlialithwick.bsky.social about the (probably) constitutional way that Trump could finagle a third presidential term 😬 slate.com/news-and-pol...
Comments
if a vp takes over during the term of a standing poutus (for what ever reason), then goes on to earn two more terms?
cheers!
Admittedly more ridiculous shit has happened.
That’s how we got a game show host.
Constitutional pedantry make for shitty election strategy.
Like what you just did.
The 2-term limit gets drilled into you by middle school. It is the easiest fact to remember. It was on the test.
People just know in their bones what it’s supposed to mean.
Remember The whole injunctive relief they gave the Catholic Church during Covid.
I can imagine SCOTUS dreaming up all kinds of bullshit. Doesn't mean we should accept it.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4768521-supreme-court-conservative-5th-circuit/amp/
NO, IT MEANS I GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THIS AND WANT SOMETHING TO BE DONE ABOUT IT!!!
Get back in the damn ring!
they will turn against Trump if their lives get worse
There’s been coups and counter-coups since then and the court reimposed term limits in Nov 2024 so 🤷.
Someone advised Democrat leadership to sit and wait.
Someone advised Kamala not to ask for manual counts (which are only bad for cheaters).
Someone is advancing corporate/billionaire agenda. Successfully...
It means the solution must be found outside this SCOTUS... & thru state courts, the legislature, public opinion, or expanding SCOTUS. It doesn’t mean you stop making the case before SCOTUS
Had the GOP gained control of both Congressional chambers they almost certainly would’ve ruled in the NC legislature’s favor.
https://bsky.app/profile/djsziff.bsky.social/post/3lefce2qgec2j
It's ultimately a radicalizing image, but def a big yikes.
Perhaps I am being too cynical and elitist—and I genuinely don’t mean that sarcastically.
https://bsky.app/profile/djsziff.bsky.social/post/3lefce2qgec2j
"No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
So what is it we are talking about here?
(This is not a criticism.)
Its disgusting and then it makes perfect sense why they keep losing
They don't see this shit as a knock-on effect... largely because democrats STILL SOMEHOW HAVEN'T politicized the control of the SCOTUS.
Electoral consequences aren't a deterrent for fucking over our rights via the court, because voters don't remember long enough to issue them.
If something evil was somehow able to be argued convincingly to be “constitutional” what the fuck is the point?
Legal brain rot
Only question is how to put enough spine into those officers.
The constitutional rule itself is anti-democratic, and there seems to be little appetite among D-appointed jurists to defend anti-democratic constitutional rules.
Rejecting “put the question to the public” is challenging when your political coalition’s own judicial picks adopted that rule.
"No one resident in the United States of America (defined as that area between 156-64 degrees West, and 72 degrees North-18 degrees South, in which US law is the law of the land) shall be an obtuse arsehole (either deliberately or accidentally).
I don’t know anyone a decade ago who wouldn’t have found the 14th Amendment “clear” (despite lingering concerns) yet here we are about to swear in a 21st century Jefferson Davis!
it means that he’s both pliant to their bidding and liable to die randomly, crowning whomever they can install as his vp, who may have been unelectably extreme otherwise
Um... didn't we kind of already do that???
Does this qualify as Originalism? I'm not being snarky; to my mind we are taking the obvious and clear meaning to those who wrote the text.
"Make Congress Go Away for a While", "Break the Federal Government", "Cut Medicaid", "Repeal the ACA", "End the School Lunch Program", etc etc etc.
Are these writers auditioning for a job in his administration?
Otherwise, he is claiming he has been elected twice (and, thus, was ineligible to run in 2024).
You can have people in the cabinet or Congress who aren't capable of being president bc of the understanding that they'd be skipped over.
(Immigrants should be eligible, but that's a different argument.)
Therefore saying "nothing" prevents that is quite the stretch.
Giving aid and comfort to the GOP isn't helping, and being smugly "above it all" isn't a good look.
The last thing the rest of the world needs is passive encouragement of the GOP.
Extreme Right has toyed with a Const Convention for decades to do the job. More recently:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/16/1742019/-Koch-Republicans-Inch-Closer-Towards-Replacing-the-Constitution
SCOTUS has already declared no states have the right to keep him off the ballot. Will the chief justice refuse to swear him in?
Course the sanity of a majority of SCOTUS was never questioned.
He said “norm”. We can’t enforce norms.
In the immortal words of Bone Thugs:
Wake up wake wake up…
SCOTUS says he can't be prosecuted for any laws he breaks while President.
We're already in a place where the Constitution doesn't matter.
Trump will not honor his oath.
I always joked Biden should have resigned jan 21 2023 the. Kamala would have ine day short of 2 yrs as Pres and then be able to be electrd to 2 terms.
Who cares if it works or not? It’s their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution. I’d rather be in uncharted waters.
https://www.damemagazine.com/2024/12/03/king-trump-is-not-inevitable/
Like, I *could* run naked and screaming into the street tomorrow, but I'm not gonna :P
https://bsky.app/profile/djsziff.bsky.social/post/3lefce2qgec2j
Everything after that is irrelevant
The Constitution is no longer in effect.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii
I think you're on to something here!
They were, elected, again, with the expectation of becoming president as inextricable from their election
Not that it's likely to happen, but it would be a situation where if taft had had the 22nd, had won his second term, then was elected to the SC, that *doesn't* conflict, because no chance of succession
In such a case, the line of succession must pick up with first person in line who is qualified to serve as President under the Constitution
Nobody Andrew Johnson pardoned was convicted of insurrection in the 1860s. It is clearly self-executing.
And BTW, this court has effectively nullified the constitution by deliberately misinterpreting it in Trump’s favour on multiple occassions.
And in any event, if he got himself elected president, why the fuck would he step down? Why not serve out his term and go for re-election?