Cool how the dems always wait until the last minute to ineffectively attempt the bare minimum.
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
214 points (99.5% liked)
politics
24891 readers
3725 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not even the bare minimum, it's dangerous. Every idiot, every American knows it applies to the total, it's never been a realistic conversation. Also, I doubt more than 15% could even tell you who he was let alone when FDR served. The illiteracy rate in America is getting really disturbing.
Him doing this is just opening the conversation, it makes it seem like he agrees that it currently reads as non consecutive... when no person acting in good faith would agree with agree with that.
Democrats love blue balls
If Trump tried to run for a third term, could Obama run against him?
Yes, he could. But, that would require real elections, which is a pipe dream now
We shouldn't even entertain the idea of third terms. It's starts normalizing it.
We shouldn't have normalized letting traitors run for office. But SCOTUS deemed the constitution "unenforceable".
We need to normalize the constitution. But people acted like the 14th amendment was "novel" and now there's precedence.
If they are playing the non-consecutive game...
If we are breaking it to that point, then he'll just run again and kill any one who runs against him. Officially of course. That way it can't be a crime. Or he could just retire like sulla did after dealing the mortal blow to the republic. Will it really matter at that point if everything is "fixed"
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
I'm honestly not too worried about this. Trump can already effectively run for a third or any number of terms. The Republican party is now a full-on cult of personality around Trump. To stay in power, all Trump has to do is have one of his fail sons run as his successor. During the campaign, have the actual candidate largely in the background, and make it clear to all voters that his son will be running as a formality only; Trump will remain the real power behind the throne. And, once elected, Trump can continue to maintain power through the power he personally has on the party. If his son ever goes against his wishes, Trump can get on TV and immediately turn the base against the nominal president. His son may formally be president, but he's not getting anything past MAGA congressmembers without the blessing of Trump himself.
I will vomit everyday forever if Ivanka turns out to be our first female president.
I doubt he'll be anything other than dead or a drooling vegetable in 4 years.
We need a new Constitutional Congress.
From a purely physiological and health-related standpoint, is anyone actually afraid that this may happen? Duder is like 80 and lives on fast food and uppers as far as I know.
Kings and tyrants always have successors.
the people are left to pay the bill when a fight for succession happens.
I would ask everyone to imagine the US being like the post Soviet collapse. ammo out the ass but not a crumb to eat.
who am I kidding though, the youngins weren't alive then. I doubt they even remember Kosovo.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Fat fuck will be long dead.