FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 3rd Term
3rd Term
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"So now the Republicans are going to push for a constitutional law change to allow him to serve a 3rd term and set the limits on only 2 consecutive terms. They really have drank the cool aid" It has a 0% chance of succeeding, but a Trump/Obama face off in 2028 would be lolz | |||
| |||
"So now the Republicans are going to push for a constitutional law change to allow him to serve a 3rd term and set the limits on only 2 consecutive terms. They really have drank the cool aid It has a 0% chance of succeeding, but a Trump/Obama face off in 2028 would be lolz" That would be phenomenal if it happened, can you imagine lol | |||
| |||
" Emperor Trump supreme ruler of planet earth. Dressed like ming the merciless " fake news fake news | |||
"So now the Republicans are going to push for a constitutional law change to allow him to serve a 3rd term and set the limits on only 2 consecutive terms. They really have drank the cool aid" If he solves world hunger, brings global peace and all other existential threats facing humanity, then great. He deserves it. Let's see if he can sort out the medical train wreck that is the USA first and take it from there. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Its weird the way history has a way of being forgotten when convenient. People thought Hitler would be a breath of fresh air for Germany back in 1933. Hitler wanted to make Germany great again, had territorial ambitions over its neighbours, revelled in marginalising minorities and turning them into scapegoats for his perceived threats. Sound familiar Donald?" Exactly this. The events that are happening now are a rerun of what happened then. A lot of people have forgotten these events or just don’t know. Worrying times. | |||
| |||
"He’s now threatening to withhold wildfire relief unless California without a change to voter ID and changes to water regulations. I’m no expert in US legal stuff, but a dude on TikTok said that bribery (withholding disaster relief without other promises in return) is an impeachable offence. It’s day 4 of Trump’s second term…." They voted him back in, they've only got themselves to blame. | |||
"I find it interesting that people in the UK are getting so anxious about the issue of multiple terms of office for US political leader, can anyone tell me what restrictions there are on the number of times a UK politician can hold the position of Prime Minister. (Yes I am aware they are not exactly the same but essentially they are the country’s political leader)" In the UK we vote for a political party to be the Government. The Prime Minister is just the leader of the party and can be removed and replaced at the will of his majority party. The American system places a single individual at the head of one of the coequal branches of Government. He appoints a cabinet to execute his instructions. He can only be replaced by impeachment. The system is different. | |||
"I find it interesting that people in the UK are getting so anxious about the issue of multiple terms of office for US political leader, can anyone tell me what restrictions there are on the number of times a UK politician can hold the position of Prime Minister. (Yes I am aware they are not exactly the same but essentially they are the country’s political leader) In the UK we vote for a political party to be the Government. The Prime Minister is just the leader of the party and can be removed and replaced at the will of his majority party. The American system places a single individual at the head of one of the coequal branches of Government. He appoints a cabinet to execute his instructions. He can only be replaced by impeachment. The system is different." Yes, I did acknowledge that in my post. For all intents and purposes the prime minister is in charge of government policy and direction, the jobs are the same in essence, and as for removal of an incumbent are you aware that a British government, if it had sufficient majority and its own party support could actually pass legislation that would do away with future elections, they would have to cross the usual hurdles that all legislation goes through but it is possible under our process. It interests me that people here have so much to say about other countries and their systems of government, when our own could do with more scrutiny. | |||
| |||
"I find it interesting that people in the UK are getting so anxious about the issue of multiple terms of office for US political leader, can anyone tell me what restrictions there are on the number of times a UK politician can hold the position of Prime Minister. (Yes I am aware they are not exactly the same but essentially they are the country’s political leader) In the UK we vote for a political party to be the Government. The Prime Minister is just the leader of the party and can be removed and replaced at the will of his majority party. The American system places a single individual at the head of one of the coequal branches of Government. He appoints a cabinet to execute his instructions. He can only be replaced by impeachment. The system is different. Yes, I did acknowledge that in my post. For all intents and purposes the prime minister is in charge of government policy and direction, the jobs are the same in essence, and as for removal of an incumbent are you aware that a British government, if it had sufficient majority and its own party support could actually pass legislation that would do away with future elections, they would have to cross the usual hurdles that all legislation goes through but it is possible under our process. It interests me that people here have so much to say about other countries and their systems of government, when our own could do with more scrutiny. " British politics is boring. Starmer is, for me at least, the right leader in that he takes a route he thinks is right despite it being unpopular. Whether or not it is right we can only wait and see. When viewing the USA through the clear lens of a telescope, unaffected by the propaganda Americans are swamped with from birth, we can see the promises of the popularists and potential dictators are quite simply undeliverable and in many cases inhuman. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"So now the Republicans are going to push for a constitutional law change to allow him to serve a 3rd term and set the limits on only 2 consecutive terms. If he solves world hunger, brings global peace and all other existential threats facing humanity, then great. He deserves it. They really have drank the cool aid If he solves world hunger, brings global peace and all other existential threats facing humanity, then great. He deserves it. Let's see if he can sort out the medical train wreck that is the USA first and take it from there." I mean he probably will solve this by. 1. Letting poor people starve 2.putting a big gun to the back of the weaker party 3. Introducing silly laws to diverge peoples attention, and then refusing to talk about the bigger issues. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Its weird the way history has a way of being forgotten when convenient. People thought Hitler would be a breath of fresh air for Germany back in 1933. Hitler wanted to make Germany great again, had territorial ambitions over its neighbours, revelled in marginalising minorities and turning them into scapegoats for his perceived threats. Sound familiar Donald?" It saved him having to think  | |||
"No 3rd term for the Donald. Nothing to see here. Thankfully " what you meen to say the democrats were lying when they said he was a threat to democracy and there wouldn't be anymore elections I'm shocked I tell ya | |||
| |||
"The two term limit only came in to effect in 1951 when the 22nd amendment was ratified. Roosevelt had just finished his 4th term after 12 years in office." When I say “finished” - I mean died in office. He would have gone on much longer as he had just started his fourth term. | |||
| |||
"Oh this seems to be the thread where all the TDS people go. Why worry about President Trump? Enough to fix in UK and with the London Mayor." Ah yes "TDS" is the weak insult that Trumpers use against anyone who discusses Trump's policies or rhetoric. People are concerned because. 1. US news is prominent in the UK. 2. Some policies effect us. Such as Trump trying to cause as much climate change as possible, for the benefit of the oil industry. 3. Some people have empathy for the millions of Americans who are and will be suffering. I agree though, we have enough to worry about here with the rise of the far right. Personally I don't live in London, so I'm not in constant panic about their mayor being non-white. | |||
 | |||
"lol he’ll be 83 years old "His son won't. They will make Don Jr VP and when his old man goes he will take over. | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. "the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control. | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control."I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term. On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived. If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again. The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough. | |||
"As Sitting Bull once said Orange man speak with fork tongue." If man speaks with fork tongue, Trump must have a canteen of cutlery in there. | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
"There’s a lot to unpack in this.. The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail. Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve. Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above. It’s a non starter. | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter."In a normal world you are right. In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution. Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him. And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him. | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him. "The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot. Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2. | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot.
Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2."Trump has plenty of time to replace people how are in key positions to oppose him and install his lackeys. He has four ways to retain power. 1. Amend the constitution. - Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles has already taken up the cause, proposing a constitutional amendment. 2. Sidestep the Constitution - Stand as VP then get his elected stooge to stand down once elected. 3. Ignore the Constitution. - He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him. 4. Defy the Constitution. - He could just simply refuse to leave office. Present day and history has shown when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits. This all may sound like a dystopian vision of America straight off the pages of The Handmaid’s Tail. But ask yourself do you really believe that Donald J Trump would not try any of those options. More than happy to be proven wrong in 2028 with a new president. Either Democrat or non Trump stooge Republican. | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot.
Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2.
Trump has plenty of time to replace people how are in key positions to oppose him and install his lackeys.
He has four ways to retain power.
1. Amend the constitution. - Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles has already taken up the cause, proposing a constitutional amendment.
2. Sidestep the Constitution - Stand as VP then get his elected stooge to stand down once elected.
3. Ignore the Constitution. - He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him.
4. Defy the Constitution. - He could just simply refuse to leave office.
Present day and history has shown when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.
This all may sound like a dystopian vision of America straight off the pages of The Handmaid’s Tail.
But ask yourself do you really believe that Donald J Trump would not try any of those options.
More than happy to be proven wrong in 2028 with a new president. Either Democrat or non Trump stooge Republican.
"non trump republicans are no more,the trump republicans will be in charge of the party for a good few years,and after watching the democrats last week appointing there new chair to lead the democrat party I wouldn't be surprised if they get batterd in the midterms,nearly everyone of them putting themselves forward seemed to still be banging the identity politics and Palestinians drum,seems as they still haven't realised the majority of Americans don't care about any of that stuff | |||
| |||
| |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot.
Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2.
Trump has plenty of time to replace people how are in key positions to oppose him and install his lackeys.
He has four ways to retain power.
1. Amend the constitution. - Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles has already taken up the cause, proposing a constitutional amendment.
2. Sidestep the Constitution - Stand as VP then get his elected stooge to stand down once elected.
3. Ignore the Constitution. - He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him.
4. Defy the Constitution. - He could just simply refuse to leave office.
Present day and history has shown when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.
This all may sound like a dystopian vision of America straight off the pages of The Handmaid’s Tail.
But ask yourself do you really believe that Donald J Trump would not try any of those options.
More than happy to be proven wrong in 2028 with a new president. Either Democrat or non Trump stooge Republican.
"Non of those things will work, you need to prioritise the constitution over the perceived power of Trump. 1 Amend the constitution / never going to happen as I described above 3&4. are the same solution and the same outcome as 1. 2. Is exactly the same outcome 22nd amendment covers that. In short the 22nd amendment has it covered. | |||
| |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot.
Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2.
Trump has plenty of time to replace people how are in key positions to oppose him and install his lackeys.
He has four ways to retain power.
1. Amend the constitution. - Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles has already taken up the cause, proposing a constitutional amendment.
2. Sidestep the Constitution - Stand as VP then get his elected stooge to stand down once elected.
3. Ignore the Constitution. - He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him.
4. Defy the Constitution. - He could just simply refuse to leave office.
Present day and history has shown when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.
This all may sound like a dystopian vision of America straight off the pages of The Handmaid’s Tail.
But ask yourself do you really believe that Donald J Trump would not try any of those options.
More than happy to be proven wrong in 2028 with a new president. Either Democrat or non Trump stooge Republican.
Non of those things will work, you need to prioritise the constitution over the perceived power of Trump.
1 Amend the constitution / never going to happen as I described above
3&4. are the same solution and the same outcome as 1.
2. Is exactly the same outcome 22nd amendment covers that.
In short the 22nd amendment has it covered.
"Option 2 - There is a loophole that allows for a former president to stand as VP and for the elected president to stand aside with the VP taking office as president. Options 3&4 are not the same Also you have to a mechanism to enforce the 22nd Amendment. If the government and judiciary has been hollowed out and key personnel have been replaced by his lackeys Which is currently happening. There might not be anyone to realistically oppose him. | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot.
Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2.
Trump has plenty of time to replace people how are in key positions to oppose him and install his lackeys.
He has four ways to retain power.
1. Amend the constitution. - Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles has already taken up the cause, proposing a constitutional amendment.
2. Sidestep the Constitution - Stand as VP then get his elected stooge to stand down once elected.
3. Ignore the Constitution. - He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him.
4. Defy the Constitution. - He could just simply refuse to leave office.
Present day and history has shown when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.
This all may sound like a dystopian vision of America straight off the pages of The Handmaid’s Tail.
But ask yourself do you really believe that Donald J Trump would not try any of those options.
More than happy to be proven wrong in 2028 with a new president. Either Democrat or non Trump stooge Republican.
Non of those things will work, you need to prioritise the constitution over the perceived power of Trump.
1 Amend the constitution / never going to happen as I described above
3&4. are the same solution and the same outcome as 1.
2. Is exactly the same outcome 22nd amendment covers that.
In short the 22nd amendment has it covered.
Option 2 - There is a loophole that allows for a former president to stand as VP and for the elected president to stand aside with the VP taking office as president.
Options 3&4 are not the same
Also you have to a mechanism to enforce the 22nd Amendment.
If the government and judiciary has been hollowed out and key personnel have been replaced by his lackeys Which is currently happening. There might not be anyone to realistically oppose him.
"The 22nd Amendment prevents a former president from being elected to a third term, making them ineligible to serve as Vice President under the 12th Amendment | |||
" The 22nd Amendment prevents a former president from being elected to a third term, making them ineligible to serve as Vice President under the 12th Amendment" That is not entirely true… The 22nd Amendment doesn’t say Trump would be ineligible to serve as president for a third term. It just says he is ineligible to run for a third term (or, more precisely, to be elected to a third term). So neither does the 12th Amendment’s eligibility provision doesn’t seem to close off Trump using that loophole either. It just gets quite murky constitutionally but doesn’t really rule out his eligibility using that loophole. I certainly wouldn’t be betting against it. | |||
" The 22nd Amendment prevents a former president from being elected to a third term, making them ineligible to serve as Vice President under the 12th Amendment That is not entirely true… The 22nd Amendment doesn’t say Trump would be ineligible to serve as president for a third term. It just says he is ineligible to run for a third term (or, more precisely, to be elected to a third term). So neither does the 12th Amendment’s eligibility provision doesn’t seem to close off Trump using that loophole either. It just gets quite murky constitutionally but doesn’t really rule out his eligibility using that loophole. I certainly wouldn’t be betting against it." Trump’s only legal path to a third term, as I previously mentioned, would be to amend the Constitution which is a process requiring 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change, which is politically impossible. On all the other items you have mentioned the bottom line is the 22nd and 12th amendments together close off all legal avenues for a third term, he doesn't get on the ticket, it is a hard stop and trust me, he wouldn't be flirting with jail if he tried to strong arm the constitution. Any attempt to sidestep the constitution would trigger legal, institutional, and political resistance. The US system is not dependent on an individuals personnel choices it has multiple layers of protection against unconstitutional power grabs. | |||
" The 22nd Amendment prevents a former president from being elected to a third term, making them ineligible to serve as Vice President under the 12th Amendment That is not entirely true… The 22nd Amendment doesn’t say Trump would be ineligible to serve as president for a third term. It just says he is ineligible to run for a third term (or, more precisely, to be elected to a third term). So neither does the 12th Amendment’s eligibility provision doesn’t seem to close off Trump using that loophole either. It just gets quite murky constitutionally but doesn’t really rule out his eligibility using that loophole. I certainly wouldn’t be betting against it. Trump’s only legal path to a third term, as I previously mentioned, would be to amend the Constitution which is a process requiring 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change, which is politically impossible. On all the other items you have mentioned the bottom line is the 22nd and 12th amendments together close off all legal avenues for a third term, he doesn't get on the ticket, it is a hard stop and trust me, he wouldn't be flirting with jail if he tried to strong arm the constitution. Any attempt to sidestep the constitution would trigger legal, institutional, and political resistance. The US system is not dependent on an individuals personnel choices it has multiple layers of protection against unconstitutional power grabs. " I’m not sure it’s as clear cut as you make it. What you described is dependent on a fully functional independent judiciary. That is not prepared to take a partisan stance. Legally you could make a case that it’s fairly clear that a twice-elected president is still eligible. As the eligibility or ineligibility is dependent on the interpretation of the exact wording of amendments. Whilst the 12th amendment says that no one “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President.” But as the 22nd amendment states a president cannot be elected to a third term doesn’t mean that he can’t serve a third term. So the 12th Amendment’s eligibility provision doesn’t seem to rule out that being used as a loophole. Though this all could provoke a constitutional crisis. But it doesn’t rule out it being used or at least tried as way to serve more than a 2nd term. | |||
" The 22nd Amendment prevents a former president from being elected to a third term, making them ineligible to serve as Vice President under the 12th Amendment That is not entirely true… The 22nd Amendment doesn’t say Trump would be ineligible to serve as president for a third term. It just says he is ineligible to run for a third term (or, more precisely, to be elected to a third term). So neither does the 12th Amendment’s eligibility provision doesn’t seem to close off Trump using that loophole either. It just gets quite murky constitutionally but doesn’t really rule out his eligibility using that loophole. I certainly wouldn’t be betting against it." So bet on it then - I’ll take it up to £200 at 1/1 if you’re so sure? | |||
" The 22nd Amendment prevents a former president from being elected to a third term, making them ineligible to serve as Vice President under the 12th Amendment That is not entirely true… The 22nd Amendment doesn’t say Trump would be ineligible to serve as president for a third term. It just says he is ineligible to run for a third term (or, more precisely, to be elected to a third term). So neither does the 12th Amendment’s eligibility provision doesn’t seem to close off Trump using that loophole either. It just gets quite murky constitutionally but doesn’t really rule out his eligibility using that loophole. I certainly wouldn’t be betting against it. So bet on it then - I’ll take it up to £200 at 1/1 if you’re so sure? " This was just a way of showing how the American constitution could be circumvented to enable a 3rd or more term being served. The American constitution is not a robust as a lot of people think. With a determined president and a compliant judiciary, senators and media. Together with an electorate that have bought in to the personality cult the normal could be upended. This all could be possible in 2028, but I hope I’m proven wrong. | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot.
Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2.
Trump has plenty of time to replace people how are in key positions to oppose him and install his lackeys.
He has four ways to retain power.
1. Amend the constitution. - Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles has already taken up the cause, proposing a constitutional amendment.
2. Sidestep the Constitution - Stand as VP then get his elected stooge to stand down once elected.
3. Ignore the Constitution. - He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him.
4. Defy the Constitution. - He could just simply refuse to leave office.
Present day and history has shown when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.
This all may sound like a dystopian vision of America straight off the pages of The Handmaid’s Tail.
But ask yourself do you really believe that Donald J Trump would not try any of those options.
More than happy to be proven wrong in 2028 with a new president. Either Democrat or non Trump stooge Republican.
"Well stated. Dystopian, but in the end, it is how despots gain permanent power. Trump supporters/voters who put him in power must accept the reality that their vote may have brought about the demise of the democrasy and freedoms they claim to hold so dear. And he did not reduce the price of eggs did he? Did they vote for him so he could stop helping the poor, starving and sick around the world? Is this really what MAGA belives a Great Again America is? | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot.
Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2.
Trump has plenty of time to replace people how are in key positions to oppose him and install his lackeys.
He has four ways to retain power.
1. Amend the constitution. - Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles has already taken up the cause, proposing a constitutional amendment.
2. Sidestep the Constitution - Stand as VP then get his elected stooge to stand down once elected.
3. Ignore the Constitution. - He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him.
4. Defy the Constitution. - He could just simply refuse to leave office.
Present day and history has shown when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.
This all may sound like a dystopian vision of America straight off the pages of The Handmaid’s Tail.
But ask yourself do you really believe that Donald J Trump would not try any of those options.
More than happy to be proven wrong in 2028 with a new president. Either Democrat or non Trump stooge Republican.
Well stated. Dystopian, but in the end, it is how despots gain permanent power.
Trump supporters/voters who put him in power must accept the reality that their vote may have brought about the demise of the democrasy and freedoms they claim to hold so dear.
And he did not reduce the price of eggs did he? Did they vote for him so he could stop helping the poor, starving and sick around the world? Is this really what MAGA belives a Great Again America is?"DId the people who voted trump in vote him in to stop american tax payers cash being sent to other countrys, id say that was definatley one of the reasons they voted for him, if someone promised to stop foreign aid in this country i think a good lump of people would give them there vote, hell it might even make me start voting again instead of sitting elections out | |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot.
Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2.
Trump has plenty of time to replace people how are in key positions to oppose him and install his lackeys.
He has four ways to retain power.
1. Amend the constitution. - Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles has already taken up the cause, proposing a constitutional amendment.
2. Sidestep the Constitution - Stand as VP then get his elected stooge to stand down once elected.
3. Ignore the Constitution. - He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him.
4. Defy the Constitution. - He could just simply refuse to leave office.
Present day and history has shown when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.
This all may sound like a dystopian vision of America straight off the pages of The Handmaid’s Tail.
But ask yourself do you really believe that Donald J Trump would not try any of those options.
More than happy to be proven wrong in 2028 with a new president. Either Democrat or non Trump stooge Republican.
Well stated. Dystopian, but in the end, it is how despots gain permanent power.
Trump supporters/voters who put him in power must accept the reality that their vote may have brought about the demise of the democrasy and freedoms they claim to hold so dear.
And he did not reduce the price of eggs did he? Did they vote for him so he could stop helping the poor, starving and sick around the world? Is this really what MAGA belives a Great Again America is?DId the people who voted trump in vote him in to stop american tax payers cash being sent to other countrys, id say that was definatley one of the reasons they voted for him, if someone promised to stop foreign aid in this country i think a good lump of people would give them there vote, hell it might even make me start voting again instead of sitting elections out"Trump just spent £32 million of US taxpayers money on one trip to the superbowl; only to leave midway in a huff because his team was losing. How many starving Africans could be fed by £32m? Are the majority of Americans really happy to become an introverted, selfish, apathetic pariah that abandons charity despite being one of the richest countries in the world?? That is not the majority of Americans I know. | |||
| |||
"There is already on senator who has proposed changes to the constitution so that DJT can serve more than two terms. Trump has also expressed his desire to serve 3 or 4 terms. So don’t write that off as fantasy just yet. His MAGA supporters are vigorous defenders of the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms. To defend against the overreach of the state. The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. As American slides in to an authoritarian state with DJT as it’s head breaking constitutional norms and changing the Federal Government to his will with the aim to restrict criticism and personal freedoms with his MAGA supporters cheering him on at every step…. Oh the irony….. the fact that he requires 2/3 of congress to change the constitution rules out any 3rd term. Just Trump doing his usual of opening his mouth and letting it dementia riddled brain talk. He's also going to get hammered in the midterms so shoving through as much as he can in his 2 years of total control.
I wouldn’t bet on the midterms being a rallying point for the Trump opposition. It’s not a stretch to say Trump has amplified his anti-democratic tendencies in the early days of his new term.
On Jan. 20, 2021, after his myriad efforts to overthrow Joe Biden’s victory failed, Trump did leave office. Power was transferred, and America’s democratic institutions survived.
If he threatens the transfer of power again, there is no guarantee American democracy will be able to survive again.
The one thing that is clear. The words of the 22nd Amendment alone will not be enough.
There’s a lot to unpack in this..
The democratic principles and the political structure of the US were never removed, so it’s incorrect to say they were “restored” when Biden took office. The system did not fail.
Secondly, the 22nd Amendment is not just words, it’s a constitutional framework. Amending it would require huge majority support in both houses and across all states, which is impossible for Trump to achieve.
Finally, even if he wanted to run again, most states would refuse to put him on the ballot, see above.
It’s a non starter.
In a normal world you are right.
In Trump World, like Elon is continuing to ignore federal judges'orders, they would simply ignore the constitution.
Trump would use the army to subdue the "Un-american, lefty, communist, woke, immigrant loving, Democrats" who tried to stop him.
And the Sheeple in the Trump cult would salute him.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Trump can't simply ignore the constitution and stay in power beyond his term. If he attempted to, the legal process would remove him from the ballot.
Trump, will encourage the idea and try to test the waters, but he has no path to achieving it, he has had a few close shaves with the courts, he won't go for round 2.
Trump has plenty of time to replace people how are in key positions to oppose him and install his lackeys.
He has four ways to retain power.
1. Amend the constitution. - Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles has already taken up the cause, proposing a constitutional amendment.
2. Sidestep the Constitution - Stand as VP then get his elected stooge to stand down once elected.
3. Ignore the Constitution. - He could simply run for a third term and see if anyone stops him.
4. Defy the Constitution. - He could just simply refuse to leave office.
Present day and history has shown when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.
This all may sound like a dystopian vision of America straight off the pages of The Handmaid’s Tail.
But ask yourself do you really believe that Donald J Trump would not try any of those options.
More than happy to be proven wrong in 2028 with a new president. Either Democrat or non Trump stooge Republican.
Well stated. Dystopian, but in the end, it is how despots gain permanent power.
Trump supporters/voters who put him in power must accept the reality that their vote may have brought about the demise of the democrasy and freedoms they claim to hold so dear.
And he did not reduce the price of eggs did he? Did they vote for him so he could stop helping the poor, starving and sick around the world? Is this really what MAGA belives a Great Again America is?DId the people who voted trump in vote him in to stop american tax payers cash being sent to other countrys, id say that was definatley one of the reasons they voted for him, if someone promised to stop foreign aid in this country i think a good lump of people would give them there vote, hell it might even make me start voting again instead of sitting elections out
Trump just spent £32 million of US taxpayers money on one trip to the superbowl; only to leave midway in a huff because his team was losing.
How many starving Africans could be fed by £32m? Are the majority of Americans really happy to become an introverted, selfish, apathetic pariah that abandons charity despite being one of the richest countries in the world?? That is not the majority of Americans I know. "Wow.. Trump's schedule clearly stated he would be leaving the venue at 20:05 it was preplanned, and had nothing to do with his team losing... As for costs, it was closer to $10 - 20 million than $32 million. This is not unique to the Super bowl, security service costs will range from $1 - 10+ million on every trip, depending on threat levels. A flight from Florida to Vegas, will cost $3 - 4 million. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out" America became rich on the backs if sl##es from Africa. No gratitude? No compassion? I am very sad to say, if you are right, that reflects an awful degredation of the American population. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out America became rich on the backs if sl##es from Africa. No gratitude? No compassion? I am very sad to say, if you are right, that reflects an awful degredation of the American population. " get used to it because as the standard of living in the west continues to decline the more people will demand that there countrys stop borrowing money to send abroad, when your own standard of living declines its not hard to not care about others,its human nature to look out for your own before you give others a second thought | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out" You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage " so like the brexit vote really, fact is more voted for him than kamala and the ones who voted for him knew exactly what he is about, hes pretty open about who and what he is and i imagine there happy abput what he is doing so far. I bet most politicians would kill for his numbers supporting him, our leaders in europe seem to be hated at the momment even by the ones who voted for them | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage " The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans 
A big win for Trump there. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there. "I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about. Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more? As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen. | |||
| |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen."There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts. The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed. | |||
"Trump’s only legal path to a third term, as I previously mentioned, would be to amend the Constitution which is a process requiring 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change, which is politically impossible. " I agree with you, though I do not share your certainty. The legal path is not the only path. And, if history teaches us anything, it's that the politically impossible occasionally turns out to be possible after all. I think, were Trump a much younger man, he might roll the dice, just to see what he could get away with; but now? Anointing a successor - probably his son - seems more likely. Should he survive to do so. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed. "Which amendments are you referring to? If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms. Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency. The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice. Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it. That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states."I'm going to paste the wording: The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president. And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change. I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it."I am aware of the wording of the amendments. The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference. This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court. As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union. I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.""Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place. The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency. He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election. There really is no loophole. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole. "Well Presidents Xi and Putin got their respective rules changed to extend their terms of office, so I'm quite sure Trump will follow suit. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
Well Presidents Xi and Putin got their respective rules changed to extend their terms of office, so I'm quite sure Trump will follow suit."TDS underestimates the power of democracy, and places Trump in a very powerful position. Take away TDS, and you have democracy and a constitution with safeguards not afforded to authoritarian socialist regimes. | |||
| |||
"Ladies, gentlemen and others I give you Don Jnr, followed by Brandon. A bit like the Kennedy's really." And look what happened to them. (Bang! Bang!). With Trump being told by Musk's 3-year-old in the Oval Office, "You're not the President, you need to go away" You know exactly what's being disused in the musk's household. Maybe another Bang! Bang! is on the cards. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole. "This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president. The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee. But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party. So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate. The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term. As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president. The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped. Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white. Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used. As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
"I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president. I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
"I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making. It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms. As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president. That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research. The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
"Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares "Working it out and the intent behind these amendments is probably a nightmare but not for the likes of you and I to resolve. However the Twelfth Amendment explicitly states the constitutional requirements as provided for the president also apply to being vice president and the Twenty-second Amendment bars a two-term president from being elected to a third term but importantly not from serving a third or more term. This is a critical distinction in this discussion. It is not explicit as to whether these amendments together actually can bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession. It is this lack of explicitness that gives rise to the constitutional ambiguity. The interaction between the two amendments has not been tested, as no twice-elected president has ever been nominated for the vice presidency. It was this exact constitutional ambiguity that allowed for speculation in 2020 as to whether twice-elected former president Barack Obama was eligible to be vice president. Thus, there is the possibility that a twice elected president could take this path to serve as, but not be elected as president for a third or more term. Lawyers start collecting your fees now. To paraphrase the late great Brian Clough…. We can discuss this all day but in the end we will decide that I am right…. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares
Working it out and the intent behind these amendments is probably a nightmare but not for the likes of you and I to resolve.
However the Twelfth Amendment explicitly states the constitutional requirements as provided for the president also apply to being vice president and the Twenty-second Amendment bars a two-term president from being elected to a third term but importantly not from serving a third or more term. This is a critical distinction in this discussion.
It is not explicit as to whether these amendments together actually can bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.
It is this lack of explicitness that gives rise to the constitutional ambiguity.
The interaction between the two amendments has not been tested, as no twice-elected president has ever been nominated for the vice presidency.
It was this exact constitutional ambiguity that allowed for speculation in 2020 as to whether twice-elected former president Barack Obama was eligible to be vice president.
Thus, there is the possibility that a twice elected president could take this path to serve as, but not be elected as president for a third or more term.
Lawyers start collecting your fees now.
To paraphrase the late great Brian Clough…. We can discuss this all day but in the end we will decide that I am right…. "Okay, I can see how you are getting in a twist over this: In 2020, some people speculated whether Obama could be Biden’s VP The 12th and 22nd Amendments already answered that: he could not. Just because people speculated does not mean there was a legitimate legal argument. There wasn’t and the myth is reborn under Trump | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares
Working it out and the intent behind these amendments is probably a nightmare but not for the likes of you and I to resolve.
However the Twelfth Amendment explicitly states the constitutional requirements as provided for the president also apply to being vice president and the Twenty-second Amendment bars a two-term president from being elected to a third term but importantly not from serving a third or more term. This is a critical distinction in this discussion.
It is not explicit as to whether these amendments together actually can bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.
It is this lack of explicitness that gives rise to the constitutional ambiguity.
The interaction between the two amendments has not been tested, as no twice-elected president has ever been nominated for the vice presidency.
It was this exact constitutional ambiguity that allowed for speculation in 2020 as to whether twice-elected former president Barack Obama was eligible to be vice president.
Thus, there is the possibility that a twice elected president could take this path to serve as, but not be elected as president for a third or more term.
Lawyers start collecting your fees now.
To paraphrase the late great Brian Clough…. We can discuss this all day but in the end we will decide that I am right….
Okay, I can see how you are getting in a twist over this:
In 2020, some people speculated whether Obama could be Biden’s VP
The 12th and 22nd Amendments already answered that: he could not.
Just because people speculated does not mean there was a legitimate legal argument.
There wasn’t and the myth is reborn under Trump "As I said there is a degree of ambiguity that doesn’t rule it out as it is not explicitly prohibited. This has been explored this year by The National Constitution Center https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/the-22nd-amendment-and-presidential-service-beyond-two-terms Also by Conerstone Law Firm based in Pennsylvania https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/ The general conclusion is that a two-term president can come back. Though it’s an unlikely prospect but not impossible. But don’t take my word for it read those articles. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares
Working it out and the intent behind these amendments is probably a nightmare but not for the likes of you and I to resolve.
However the Twelfth Amendment explicitly states the constitutional requirements as provided for the president also apply to being vice president and the Twenty-second Amendment bars a two-term president from being elected to a third term but importantly not from serving a third or more term. This is a critical distinction in this discussion.
It is not explicit as to whether these amendments together actually can bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.
It is this lack of explicitness that gives rise to the constitutional ambiguity.
The interaction between the two amendments has not been tested, as no twice-elected president has ever been nominated for the vice presidency.
It was this exact constitutional ambiguity that allowed for speculation in 2020 as to whether twice-elected former president Barack Obama was eligible to be vice president.
Thus, there is the possibility that a twice elected president could take this path to serve as, but not be elected as president for a third or more term.
Lawyers start collecting your fees now.
To paraphrase the late great Brian Clough…. We can discuss this all day but in the end we will decide that I am right….
Okay, I can see how you are getting in a twist over this:
In 2020, some people speculated whether Obama could be Biden’s VP
The 12th and 22nd Amendments already answered that: he could not.
Just because people speculated does not mean there was a legitimate legal argument.
There wasn’t and the myth is reborn under Trump
As I said there is a degree of ambiguity that doesn’t rule it out as it is not explicitly prohibited.
This has been explored this year by The National Constitution Center
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/the-22nd-amendment-and-presidential-service-beyond-two-terms
Also by Conerstone Law Firm based in Pennsylvania
https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/
The general conclusion is that a two-term president can come back. Though it’s an unlikely prospect but not impossible.
But don’t take my word for it read those articles."Now I understand your view... And the only way possible is below, but this is end of days scenario at the hands of Hitchcock! The Speaker is third in line for the presidency, and the 12th Amendment does not apply to this role. A former president could be elected Speaker and ascend to the presidency if both the president and vice president were removed. I could walk on Mars, if... | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares
Working it out and the intent behind these amendments is probably a nightmare but not for the likes of you and I to resolve.
However the Twelfth Amendment explicitly states the constitutional requirements as provided for the president also apply to being vice president and the Twenty-second Amendment bars a two-term president from being elected to a third term but importantly not from serving a third or more term. This is a critical distinction in this discussion.
It is not explicit as to whether these amendments together actually can bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.
It is this lack of explicitness that gives rise to the constitutional ambiguity.
The interaction between the two amendments has not been tested, as no twice-elected president has ever been nominated for the vice presidency.
It was this exact constitutional ambiguity that allowed for speculation in 2020 as to whether twice-elected former president Barack Obama was eligible to be vice president.
Thus, there is the possibility that a twice elected president could take this path to serve as, but not be elected as president for a third or more term.
Lawyers start collecting your fees now.
To paraphrase the late great Brian Clough…. We can discuss this all day but in the end we will decide that I am right….
Okay, I can see how you are getting in a twist over this:
In 2020, some people speculated whether Obama could be Biden’s VP
The 12th and 22nd Amendments already answered that: he could not.
Just because people speculated does not mean there was a legitimate legal argument.
There wasn’t and the myth is reborn under Trump
As I said there is a degree of ambiguity that doesn’t rule it out as it is not explicitly prohibited.
This has been explored this year by The National Constitution Center
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/the-22nd-amendment-and-presidential-service-beyond-two-terms
Also by Conerstone Law Firm based in Pennsylvania
https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/
The general conclusion is that a two-term president can come back. Though it’s an unlikely prospect but not impossible.
But don’t take my word for it read those articles.
Now I understand your view... And the only way possible is below, but this is end of days scenario at the hands of Hitchcock!
The Speaker is third in line for the presidency, and the 12th Amendment does not apply to this role.
A former president could be elected Speaker and ascend to the presidency if both the president and vice president were removed.
I could walk on Mars, if... "Yes!!!! You now agree that there is ambiguity in the constitution and its amendments and it is not that black and white. But also as Vice President….. To quote directly from the Cornerstone Law Firm article…… The Nation could call on a former two-term President by electing him as Vice President even with the knowledge that the plan all along was for the President to resign immediately upon taking Office. Alternatively, a past popular President could become Speaker and Act as President or become President through constitutional means. Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson might have the best line on this topic: “it may be more unlikely than unconstitutional.” It’s also extremely unlikely to be struck by lightning more than once but Shenandoah National Park ranger Roy Sullivan survived getting struck by lightning not once, not twice, but seven times….. Now just have to wait until 2028 to see what the current incumbent will do. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares
Working it out and the intent behind these amendments is probably a nightmare but not for the likes of you and I to resolve.
However the Twelfth Amendment explicitly states the constitutional requirements as provided for the president also apply to being vice president and the Twenty-second Amendment bars a two-term president from being elected to a third term but importantly not from serving a third or more term. This is a critical distinction in this discussion.
It is not explicit as to whether these amendments together actually can bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.
It is this lack of explicitness that gives rise to the constitutional ambiguity.
The interaction between the two amendments has not been tested, as no twice-elected president has ever been nominated for the vice presidency.
It was this exact constitutional ambiguity that allowed for speculation in 2020 as to whether twice-elected former president Barack Obama was eligible to be vice president.
Thus, there is the possibility that a twice elected president could take this path to serve as, but not be elected as president for a third or more term.
Lawyers start collecting your fees now.
To paraphrase the late great Brian Clough…. We can discuss this all day but in the end we will decide that I am right….
Okay, I can see how you are getting in a twist over this:
In 2020, some people speculated whether Obama could be Biden’s VP
The 12th and 22nd Amendments already answered that: he could not.
Just because people speculated does not mean there was a legitimate legal argument.
There wasn’t and the myth is reborn under Trump
As I said there is a degree of ambiguity that doesn’t rule it out as it is not explicitly prohibited.
This has been explored this year by The National Constitution Center
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/the-22nd-amendment-and-presidential-service-beyond-two-terms
Also by Conerstone Law Firm based in Pennsylvania
https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/
The general conclusion is that a two-term president can come back. Though it’s an unlikely prospect but not impossible.
But don’t take my word for it read those articles.
Now I understand your view... And the only way possible is below, but this is end of days scenario at the hands of Hitchcock!
The Speaker is third in line for the presidency, and the 12th Amendment does not apply to this role.
A former president could be elected Speaker and ascend to the presidency if both the president and vice president were removed.
I could walk on Mars, if...
Yes!!!!
You now agree that there is ambiguity in the constitution and its amendments and it is not that black and white.
But also as Vice President…..
To quote directly from the Cornerstone Law Firm article……
The Nation could call on a former two-term President by electing him as Vice President even with the knowledge that the plan all along was for the President to resign immediately upon taking Office. Alternatively, a past popular President could become Speaker and Act as President or become President through constitutional means.
Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson might have the best line on this topic: “it may be more unlikely than unconstitutional.”
It’s also extremely unlikely to be struck by lightning more than once but Shenandoah National Park ranger Roy Sullivan survived getting struck by lightning not once, not twice, but seven times…..
Now just have to wait until 2028 to see what the current incumbent will do."No, I don't agree there is any ambiguity, because it is clearly a catch all, should the President and VP both be removed from office at exactly the same time, it allows the Speaker to assume the position of President. If that scenario happened it would be a dark day in the US, this is why there is a succession to support stabilisation. This is semantic argument, someone has said imagine if. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares
Working it out and the intent behind these amendments is probably a nightmare but not for the likes of you and I to resolve.
However the Twelfth Amendment explicitly states the constitutional requirements as provided for the president also apply to being vice president and the Twenty-second Amendment bars a two-term president from being elected to a third term but importantly not from serving a third or more term. This is a critical distinction in this discussion.
It is not explicit as to whether these amendments together actually can bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.
It is this lack of explicitness that gives rise to the constitutional ambiguity.
The interaction between the two amendments has not been tested, as no twice-elected president has ever been nominated for the vice presidency.
It was this exact constitutional ambiguity that allowed for speculation in 2020 as to whether twice-elected former president Barack Obama was eligible to be vice president.
Thus, there is the possibility that a twice elected president could take this path to serve as, but not be elected as president for a third or more term.
Lawyers start collecting your fees now.
To paraphrase the late great Brian Clough…. We can discuss this all day but in the end we will decide that I am right….
Okay, I can see how you are getting in a twist over this:
In 2020, some people speculated whether Obama could be Biden’s VP
The 12th and 22nd Amendments already answered that: he could not.
Just because people speculated does not mean there was a legitimate legal argument.
There wasn’t and the myth is reborn under Trump
As I said there is a degree of ambiguity that doesn’t rule it out as it is not explicitly prohibited.
This has been explored this year by The National Constitution Center
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/the-22nd-amendment-and-presidential-service-beyond-two-terms
Also by Conerstone Law Firm based in Pennsylvania
https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/
The general conclusion is that a two-term president can come back. Though it’s an unlikely prospect but not impossible.
But don’t take my word for it read those articles.
Now I understand your view... And the only way possible is below, but this is end of days scenario at the hands of Hitchcock!
The Speaker is third in line for the presidency, and the 12th Amendment does not apply to this role.
A former president could be elected Speaker and ascend to the presidency if both the president and vice president were removed.
I could walk on Mars, if...
Yes!!!!
You now agree that there is ambiguity in the constitution and its amendments and it is not that black and white.
But also as Vice President…..
To quote directly from the Cornerstone Law Firm article……
The Nation could call on a former two-term President by electing him as Vice President even with the knowledge that the plan all along was for the President to resign immediately upon taking Office. Alternatively, a past popular President could become Speaker and Act as President or become President through constitutional means.
might have the best line on this topic: “it may be more unlikely than unconstitutional.”
It’s also extremely unlikely to be struck by lightning more than once but Shenandoah National Park ranger Roy Sullivan survived getting struck by lightning not once, not twice, but seven times…..
Now just have to wait until 2028 to see what the current incumbent will do.
No, I don't agree there is any ambiguity, because it is clearly a catch all, should the President and VP both be removed from office at exactly the same time, it allows the Speaker to assume the position of President. If that scenario happened it would be a dark day in the US, this is why there is a succession to support stabilisation.
This is semantic argument, someone has said imagine if."I guess that you know better than the Cornerstone Law Firm and Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson on this subject…. | |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares
Working it out and the intent behind these amendments is probably a nightmare but not for the likes of you and I to resolve.
However the Twelfth Amendment explicitly states the constitutional requirements as provided for the president also apply to being vice president and the Twenty-second Amendment bars a two-term president from being elected to a third term but importantly not from serving a third or more term. This is a critical distinction in this discussion.
It is not explicit as to whether these amendments together actually can bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.
It is this lack of explicitness that gives rise to the constitutional ambiguity.
The interaction between the two amendments has not been tested, as no twice-elected president has ever been nominated for the vice presidency.
It was this exact constitutional ambiguity that allowed for speculation in 2020 as to whether twice-elected former president Barack Obama was eligible to be vice president.
Thus, there is the possibility that a twice elected president could take this path to serve as, but not be elected as president for a third or more term.
Lawyers start collecting your fees now.
To paraphrase the late great Brian Clough…. We can discuss this all day but in the end we will decide that I am right….
Okay, I can see how you are getting in a twist over this:
In 2020, some people speculated whether Obama could be Biden’s VP
The 12th and 22nd Amendments already answered that: he could not.
Just because people speculated does not mean there was a legitimate legal argument.
There wasn’t and the myth is reborn under Trump
As I said there is a degree of ambiguity that doesn’t rule it out as it is not explicitly prohibited.
This has been explored this year by The National Constitution Center
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/the-22nd-amendment-and-presidential-service-beyond-two-terms
Also by Conerstone Law Firm based in Pennsylvania
https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/
The general conclusion is that a two-term president can come back. Though it’s an unlikely prospect but not impossible.
But don’t take my word for it read those articles.
Now I understand your view... And the only way possible is below, but this is end of days scenario at the hands of Hitchcock!
The Speaker is third in line for the presidency, and the 12th Amendment does not apply to this role.
A former president could be elected Speaker and ascend to the presidency if both the president and vice president were removed.
I could walk on Mars, if...
Yes!!!!
You now agree that there is ambiguity in the constitution and its amendments and it is not that black and white.
But also as Vice President…..
To quote directly from the Cornerstone Law Firm article……
The Nation could call on a former two-term President by electing him as Vice President even with the knowledge that the plan all along was for the President to resign immediately upon taking Office. Alternatively, a past popular President could become Speaker and Act as President or become President through constitutional means.
might have the best line on this topic: “it may be more unlikely than unconstitutional.”
It’s also extremely unlikely to be struck by lightning more than once but Shenandoah National Park ranger Roy Sullivan survived getting struck by lightning not once, not twice, but seven times…..
Now just have to wait until 2028 to see what the current incumbent will do.
No, I don't agree there is any ambiguity, because it is clearly a catch all, should the President and VP both be removed from office at exactly the same time, it allows the Speaker to assume the position of President. If that scenario happened it would be a dark day in the US, this is why there is a succession to support stabilisation.
This is semantic argument, someone has said imagine if.
I guess that you know better than the Cornerstone Law Firm and Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson on this subject…. "I can spot a what if, and so can you. It pulls in the views and creates speculation as done here. The bottom line of the what if is, Trump becomes speaker, POUTUS and vice are both eliminated at the same time, allowing the speaker to step into the role of president. Now I like a good plot twist but I'm not sure even Hollywood would bother with this one.
However TDS does notch up the Virtual Reality levels to +11. 
I have a take away, the eventuality planning that I was unaware of ref the speaker | |||
| |||
"Did the majority of americans you know vote for him? Because the majority of americans did, the one the popular vote the house the senate and the electoral college, he is doing what he said he was going to do so yea id say there more than happy with what he is doing, just because americans you know aint happy about what he is doing dosent change the fact there will be lots more who are more than happy, and anyway why is it the countrys in the west that have to bail everyone out all the time, all third world debt was cancelled 15-20years ago that was supposed to help these countrys yet here we are 20years later still having to bail them out You do realise there was only just over 1% difference in public voting. So pretty much almost half of USA voters didn’t want him 48.4 to 49.8 percentage The important numbers; Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226. He picked up the popular vote which is what your figures show, not happened since 2004 for the republicans
A big win for Trump there.
I don’t think anyone is doubting the numbers what can be debated is the interpretation but that is not what the premise of the OP’s question was about.
Do we think that Trump will try to be president for a third term or more?
As there is a loophole in the constitution amendments that could allow for that to happen.
There is no loophole! I’ve already addressed this. You are free to interpret information as you wish, but that doesn’t change the facts.
The US Constitution was explicitly amended to prevent a third term. Supporters of past presidents have considered challenging this, but the legal and political hurdles have always been to hard to overcome. There is no credible path for Trump, or anyone else to serve beyond two terms, unless the constitution is amended as I have previously mentioned with the figures needed.
Which amendments are you referring to?
If it’s the 22nd then this only prohibits someone from being elected to more than 2nd term not serving more than 2 terms.
Neither the 22nd or 12th amendments restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency.
The loophole exists because of the ambiguity it would be possible to try and exploit this as it’s never been tested in practice.
Legally it would get very messy but I’m not saying that he would do use this it’s just he could try to use it.
That way Trump would not need any constitutional amendments or ratification from the 50 states.
I'm going to paste the wording:
The 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd Amendment clearly makes Trump ineligible to be elected president again, so he would also be ineligible to serve as vice president.
And now for the 22nd amendment wording copied:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It is black and white. If you are thinking Trump can challenge this he can but he would need to change the amendment and require the following: 66% of Congress and ratification by 75% of states to support the change.
I can't make this any clearer, if you think there is a loophole so be it.
I am aware of the wording of the amendments.
The key word in the 22nd amendment is elected not serving. There is a difference.
This is where the ambiguity lies and the potential to exploit the wording not the intention of the amendments which a good set of lawyers on both sides would have a field day over. We have all seen how DJT loves his day in court.
As I said it would all get very messy legally a cause a constitutional crisis with major ramifications to democracy within the Union.
I love these debates that revolve around wording, interpretation and intent.
"Serving" does not matter because Trump cannot be on the ticket in the first place.
The 22nd Amendment bars him from being elected president again, and the 12th Amendment extends that ineligibility to the vice presidency.
He cannot serve a 3rd term because he can't be elected for it. The Republicans will need to nominate their next candidate while he serving his 2nd term, which will not be Trump, or they will forfeit the election.
There really is no loophole.
This is my point he doesn’t need to be elected to the presidency to serve a 3rd term as president.
The 12th Amendment about eligibility would apply if they tried to be the presidential nominee.
But as VP you avoid that. The VP is a pick by the presidential nominee endorsed by the party.
So the scenario is that a 2nd term president becomes VP running mate to the presidential candidate.
The candidate is duly elected but resigns after taking office leading to the VP taking over the presidency. Thus serving a 3rd term.
As neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
The intention of the amendments were to prevent a president serving more than two terms in office. However a determined president and a complicit nominee and party the intentions of the constitutional amendments could be potentially be site stepped.
Not being able to serve a third term is not that black and white.
Whilst it might be seen as duplicitous it doesn’t take much imagination to see this being used.
As it’s probably far easier to pull off than actually changing the constitution and all the ratification requirements.
I have explained with the actual wording of the 12th amendment that clearly states; “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president for the 3rd time, therefore he can't be vice-president.
I'm leaving this here now because I'm repeating myself.
I think that you have failed to grasp the point that I was making.
It is not true that someone cannot be VP if serving as an elected president for 2 terms.
As at the risk of repeating myself neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term as president.
That is the loophole that could be exploited if you don’t understand it might be worth doing some further research.
The fact it has never been done is irrelevant it is possible.
Crikey!
The 12th and 22nd amendments cover this. It is actually written in this thread, it spells it out that once a president has served 2 terms, they are no longer eligible to be VP. The end, can't be done without rewriting the constitution.
If you are now taking a completely different scenario, were a person who has never been president is given a VP role, they can be given the VP roles a number of times exceeding 2 as long as they don't become president either through election or succession. That is not the case for Trump, he has been president twice and he can no longer be a VP or President post his term.
I'm going to have nightmares
Working it out and the intent behind these amendments is probably a nightmare but not for the likes of you and I to resolve.
However the Twelfth Amendment explicitly states the constitutional requirements as provided for the president also apply to being vice president and the Twenty-second Amendment bars a two-term president from being elected to a third term but importantly not from serving a third or more term. This is a critical distinction in this discussion.
It is not explicit as to whether these amendments together actually can bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.
It is this lack of explicitness that gives rise to the constitutional ambiguity.
The interaction between the two amendments has not been tested, as no twice-elected president has ever been nominated for the vice presidency.
It was this exact constitutional ambiguity that allowed for speculation in 2020 as to whether twice-elected former president Barack Obama was eligible to be vice president.
Thus, there is the possibility that a twice elected president could take this path to serve as, but not be elected as president for a third or more term.
Lawyers start collecting your fees now.
To paraphrase the late great Brian Clough…. We can discuss this all day but in the end we will decide that I am right….
Okay, I can see how you are getting in a twist over this:
In 2020, some people speculated whether Obama could be Biden’s VP
The 12th and 22nd Amendments already answered that: he could not.
Just because people speculated does not mean there was a legitimate legal argument.
There wasn’t and the myth is reborn under Trump
As I said there is a degree of ambiguity that doesn’t rule it out as it is not explicitly prohibited.
This has been explored this year by The National Constitution Center
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/the-22nd-amendment-and-presidential-service-beyond-two-terms
Also by Conerstone Law Firm based in Pennsylvania
https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/
The general conclusion is that a two-term president can come back. Though it’s an unlikely prospect but not impossible.
But don’t take my word for it read those articles.
Now I understand your view... And the only way possible is below, but this is end of days scenario at the hands of Hitchcock!
The Speaker is third in line for the presidency, and the 12th Amendment does not apply to this role.
A former president could be elected Speaker and ascend to the presidency if both the president and vice president were removed.
I could walk on Mars, if...
Yes!!!!
You now agree that there is ambiguity in the constitution and its amendments and it is not that black and white.
But also as Vice President…..
To quote directly from the Cornerstone Law Firm article……
The Nation could call on a former two-term President by electing him as Vice President even with the knowledge that the plan all along was for the President to resign immediately upon taking Office. Alternatively, a past popular President could become Speaker and Act as President or become President through constitutional means.
might have the best line on this topic: “it may be more unlikely than unconstitutional.”
It’s also extremely unlikely to be struck by lightning more than once but Shenandoah National Park ranger Roy Sullivan survived getting struck by lightning not once, not twice, but seven times…..
Now just have to wait until 2028 to see what the current incumbent will do.
No, I don't agree there is any ambiguity, because it is clearly a catch all, should the President and VP both be removed from office at exactly the same time, it allows the Speaker to assume the position of President. If that scenario happened it would be a dark day in the US, this is why there is a succession to support stabilisation.
This is semantic argument, someone has said imagine if.
I guess that you know better than the Cornerstone Law Firm and Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson on this subject….
I can spot a what if, and so can you. It pulls in the views and creates speculation as done here.
The bottom line of the what if is, Trump becomes speaker, POUTUS and vice are both eliminated at the same time, allowing the speaker to step into the role of president.
Now I like a good plot twist but I'm not sure even Hollywood would bother with this one.
However TDS does notch up the Virtual Reality levels to +11.
I have a take away, the eventuality planning that I was unaware of ref the speaker "It is only speculation on how the constitution could be sidestepped in a couple of circumstances with a will and compliant participants. But as Trump has said in one of his latest social media posts “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” Which I’m sure you know is a version of a phrase attributed to Napoleon “Celui qui sauve sa patrie ne viole aucune loi” via Rod Steiger in the 1970 movie Waterloo. Which also happened to be on TV the other night. Napoleon was also a dictator who justified his despotic regime as the will of the people of France. The truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. You just can’t make some of this stuff up or if you did you might get fired as a Hollywood screenwriter to having a too outlandish plot. | |||
