nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

Summary

Rep. Daniel Goldman plans to introduce a resolution clarifying that the Constitution’s two-term limit for presidents applies even if terms are non-consecutive, aiming to close any perceived loophole after Donald Trump joked about seeking a third term.

While unlikely to advance under Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, Goldman’s resolution underscores Democrats’ concerns over Trump’s repeated comments about serving beyond two terms, which some view as “anti-democratic and authoritarian.”

Goldman urges bipartisan support to uphold the 22nd Amendment, amid fears that some Republicans might not view Trump’s statements as mere jokes.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    132·
    2 days ago

    The States can and will. Recall that there were a few states that tried to take Trump off the ballot this time around, that case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that states couldn’t use that specific clause to keep Trump off the ballot. Furthermore, that decision was unanimous, although the Liberal judges released their own opinion saying that they disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

    So by your own admission, the states already tried to remove Trump under the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court said that the 14th amendment was unenforceable because reasons. The Supreme Court that also said Trump can do whatever he damn well wants in office and can’t even be questioned about it, much less prosecuted for it. But when they use virtually the same logic to say the 22nd amendment doesn’t matter either, you think that’s where a Supreme Court 1/3 appointed by Trump himself is going to draw the line?

    Oh, you sweet, sweet summer child.

    The states already tried to keep Trump off the ballot via the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court took a giant shit on it. And the states did fucking nothing. And you think things are going to change when they just use the same playbook with the 22nd?

    It will be a lot harder for even this court to weasel it’s way around the language in that amendment.

    What makes you think the court has to weasel their way around anything? They’ve got full control. The only reasoning they need is “Because fuck you that’s why”. People didn’t do shit about it when Roe was struck down. People didn’t do shit when the SC said Trump is all but a king. People ain’t gonna do shit if the SC says “fuck the 22nd, let him run anyway.”

    If you think that the American public gives half a shit, I’ll simply reply by gesturing broadly at the results of the 2024 election.

    And it will get there quickly. The minute Trump announces another candidacy every state that is not totally MAGA will immediately refuse to put him on any ballot due to his ineligibility.

    And the Supreme Court will tell them to sit down and shut up, and they’ll comply just like they did last time. And if they try to ignore the court, good luck getting the population to consider the election legitimate.

    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      82·
      2 days ago

      The 14th amendment approach did have some legitimate issues with it. If it worked, then I am convinced Abbott would have invoked some bullshit “Biden is creating an invasion at the border” excuse to remove Biden from the ballot. That’s why the decision ended up unanimous.

      The 22nd amendment’s text is a whole lot clearer, and far less subject to interpretation. I can see a State saying “I don’t even need the Supreme Court to weigh in on this one”. And if it does come up with some tortured logic, I can see a State telling it to go to hell, because the one thing it can’t focus do is rewrite the Constitution.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 days ago

        And if it does come up with some tortured logic, I can see a State telling it to go to hell, because the one thing it can’t focus rewrite the Constitution.

        And this is where your logic falls apart. This would have been a correct statement on or before November 4, 2024. It is no longer correct. We are in TrumpWorld now. The rules as we knew them no longer matter, and can and will either be rewritten or outright ignored.

        Trump doesn’t have to rewrite the Constitution. He just has to use the same logic with the 22nd amendment as they did with the 14th: It is simply too vague and not enforceable. If Trump says that, and Congress passes a bill saying that, and the Supreme Court says “Yeah, fuck the 22nd amendment.”, and a bunch of MAGA state governments say that, then guess what?

        I mean sure, some states could go their own way and not put him on the ballot. But (a), good luck getting people to consider that election legitimate, (b) They probably wouldn’t be enough to swing the election anyway, and © the MAGA congress could just as easily set those states aside entirely because reasons.

        Thinking that a man is going to play by the rules when he’s using the rulebook as toilet paper while being cheered on by voters is probably not going to go the way you think it will. Especially when that man has already seized enough power to rewrite the rulebook at will anyway.