Don't remember where I saw it, but someone said that this is equivalent to arguing that a woman is ineligible to be president because the constitution uses the pronoun "he". It's an obviously moronic interpretation that nobody is required to accept at face value - ThreadSky

johnbrownstan.bsky.social • 65 days ago

Don't remember where I saw it, but someone said that this is equivalent to arguing that a woman is ineligible to be president because the constitution uses the pronoun "he". It's an obviously moronic interpretation that nobody is required to accept at face value

Reposted from Mark Joseph Stern

I am sorry to say that the 12th Amendment, like the 22nd, is not an obstacle to this scheme! www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/11/a-th...

Comments

bchadhill.bsky.social•65 days ago

He's already illegitimate.

And the Court's calvinball bullshit is/would be no more legitimate than Trump.

bchadhill.bsky.social•65 days ago

Text that explicitly disqualifies him: "You see, federalism and sep of powers requires us to read into the text an implied congressional predicate ..."

Text that plainly is *meant* to disqualify him: "WE MUST STRICTLY HEW TO THE TEXT, NO MATTER HOW STRAINED THE READING, WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE."

Huh

alexhenke.bsky.social•65 days ago

For me, a good rule of thumb is "How would the liberal SCOTUS justices vote if Obama tried to do this (and Trump didn't)?" This particular scheme seems like a solid 3-0 "Absolutely not." Maybe the Speaker of the House/Double Resignation gambit gets a pity vote.

yohannanx.bsky.social•65 days ago

Worth nothing the argument he’s quoting applies would apply to all of the constitutional limitations. Why couldn’t a 12 year old child in Morocco be elected president under this argument?

citizenmke.bsky.social•65 days ago

Unfortunately, those original requirements say that makes someone ineligible for the office of President, while the 22nd says they’re ineligible to be elected

yohannanx.bsky.social•65 days ago

Would they actually be president though? If we’re playing word games, there was a whole dispute in the 19th century about whether a VP was president or acting as president.

citizenmke.bsky.social•65 days ago

Well I mean that the 12th says the VP cannot be ineligible to the office of President, while the 22nd says after a 2nd term a person is ineligible to be elected to the office of President.

The original requirements also say that only certain people are eligible to the office of President.

citizenmke.bsky.social•65 days ago

Which makes some sense in that the 12th was written largely by the same people who wrote the original constitution (and so had the same understanding of the English language at the time)

citizenmke.bsky.social•65 days ago

It’s a dumb argument to be sure, but I worry about Ford being the only unelected president as a trivia question implies that holding the office and being elected are considered differently

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•65 days ago

You actively harm us by suggesting these kinds of word games have any legal relevance

chuckrudolph.bsky.social•65 days ago

People really need to learn the difference between being able to guess how bad faith actors will lie about the constitution, and a reasonable reading of the constitution

citizenmke.bsky.social•65 days ago

I’m on the side that it doesn’t really matter whether we think there’s any technical argument, SCOTUS will probably allow it anyways, but it also probably doesn’t matter as much because elections are run by states anyways

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•65 days ago

If Trump attempts to hold power for a third term in the manner it will be entirely illegitimate

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•65 days ago

It's from here

https://bsky.app/profile/angus.bsky.social/post/3lefifqaw7s2o

truth-sandwich.com•65 days ago

Just like the first two.

socio-steve.bsky.social•65 days ago

The reduction of the legal reasoning to Air Bud logic.

no-obey-advance.bsky.social•65 days ago

Knowing that many "serious" people are going to, well, take this seriously is going to drive me insane. Part of this I think derives from our deification of the Constitution as some kind of holy text whose exact meaning can be unveiled, rather than the instrument of government.

johnbrownstan.bsky.social•65 days ago

I think it's more about constitutional lawyers valuing these sorts of dumb ("clever") word games over correct but more straightforward statements

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply