It would be a severe test of the 22nd Amendment, but given the make-up of the Supreme Court...He's not up for reelection in 4 years is he?
Unless he can change the constitution of course.
When does the Orange Clown start calling for tariffs on French wine?Trump stood there hasn’t a clue what to do next unless so one tells him, he’s up against an orator and proper leader/politician so out of his depth it’s laughable. No wonder Putin can control him so much, Putin is not daft and knows how to play the orange muppet, probably the stupidest man in that room at the moment.
Are you saying SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional? I only ask because I’m frankly surprised it was EVER ruled Constitutional, given the House and Senate have no term limits.It would be a severe test of the 22nd Amendment, but given the make-up of the Supreme Court...
Thomas and Kavenaugh are almost certainly compromised, and Coney Barret is also suspect. And as for Chief Justice Roberts, he seems to be very pro MAGA these days.
Don't discount it ever happening.
After Macron leaves, of course!When does the Orange Clown start calling for tariffs on French wine?
I'm actually arguing that the SC could easily rule that a president can serve more than 2 terms. There is a reason that the Mango Moron is only claiming it applies to non-consecutive terms and that's because it precludes ObamaAre you saying SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional? I only ask because I’m frankly surprised it was EVER ruled Constitutional, given the House and Senate have no term limits.
Term limits for the President of the United States were introduced primarily in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms in office. Roosevelt broke the informal two-term precedent set by George Washington, which had been respected by all previous presidents.
FDR’s decision to run for a third term in 1940, and a fourth in 1944, was largely due to the extraordinary circumstances of World War II.
After Roosevelt’s death in 1945, there was a strong push to formalize the two-term limit to prevent what some called “abuses of power” (not adhering to George Washington’s informal precedent!) and ensure rotation in office. The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, officially established the two-term limit.
Accordingly, having never been challenged before, it would be SCOTUS’ first crack at the Amendment, but AS AN AMENDMENT, it is now an enshrined part of the Constitution and, as such, SHOULD need to be overturned by the mechanism set forth for that specific purpose…unless someone can find a flaw in the process that created the 22nd Amendment in the first place.
In short, the only argument I can see that allows SCOTUS to overturn 22A would be that it unconstitutional when enacted, but never challenged as such.
Welcome to the Upside Down!
And, here’s hoping nature will take its course sooner rather than later!!!
Are you saying SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional? I only ask because I’m frankly surprised it was EVER ruled Constitutional, given the House and Senate have no term limits.
Term limits for the President of the United States were introduced primarily in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms in office. Roosevelt broke the informal two-term precedent set by George Washington, which had been respected by all previous presidents.
FDR’s decision to run for a third term in 1940, and a fourth in 1944, was largely due to the extraordinary circumstances of World War II.
After Roosevelt’s death in 1945, there was a strong push to formalize the two-term limit to prevent what some called “abuses of power” (not adhering to George Washington’s informal precedent!) and ensure rotation in office. The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, officially established the two-term limit.
Accordingly, having never been challenged before, it would be SCOTUS’ first crack at the Amendment, but AS AN AMENDMENT, it is now an enshrined part of the Constitution and, as such, SHOULD need to be overturned by the mechanism set forth for that specific purpose…unless someone can find a flaw in the process that created the 22nd Amendment in the first place.
That is not an argument that SCOTUS can make. The 22nd amendment is not a Congressional law, its a constitutional amendment. Meaning, it cannot be unconstitutional.In short, the only argument I can see that allows SCOTUS to overturn 22A would be that it unconstitutional when enacted, but never challenged as such.
Welcome to the Upside Down!
And, here’s hoping nature will take its course sooner rather than later!!!
The SCOTUS only rules on whether something is constitutional or not, not just any old lawsuit. Ergo, there has to be an argument that two terms is somehow unconstitutional.I'm actually arguing that the SC could easily rule that a president can serve more than 2 terms. There is a reason that the Mango Moron is only claiming it applies to non-consecutive terms and that's because it precludes Obama
It would be tough. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est, as we say up north.I'm actually arguing that the SC could easily rule that a president can serve more than 2 terms. There is a reason that the Mango Moron is only claiming it applies to non-consecutive terms and that's because it precludes Obama
Unless Trump’s lawyers argue the initial underlying Amendment was unconstitutional in its writing.That is not an argument that SCOTUS can make. The 22nd amendment is not a Congressional law, its a constitutional amendment. Meaning, it cannot be unconstitutional.
The real story here, assuming there is any at all, is that this is just another "look over here" act by Trump and his cronies, to get liberals chasing a ghost while they rob the country blind on the other side.
Trump CANNOT be elected President again. Point blank Period!!!!
Certainly true if he’s not alive!Trump CANNOT be elected President again. Point blank Period!!!!
That wouldn't work because amending the constitution is a 2 step processThe SCOTUS only rules on whether something is constitutional or not, not just any old lawsuit. Ergo, there has to be an argument that two terms is somehow unconstitutional.
22A states:
Section 1. 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.
The rest (below) is irrelevant since it passed in 1951…
But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
You’ll see it has nothing to do with consecutive terms.
The ONLY Constitutional challenge, IMH non-legal O, is that the Amendment itself is illegal, as it undermines democracy and the will of the people…”We the people…”
Contrary to popular opinion, Trumps lawyers are not stupid. :)Unless Trump’s lawyers argue the initial underlying Amendment was unconstitutional in its writing.
I’m saying what you believe. I’m merely pointing out a track down which the crazy train might be driven, and noting the language saying nothing about the two terms being continuous.
Even If he lived to 120 it wont matter. He simply can't.Certainly true if he’s not alive!
He speaks better English than Trump.Macron, stick the boot in lad.
Trump is fluent in Frontier Gibberish.He speaks better English than Trump.