Summary
Rep. Daniel Goldman plans to introduce a resolution clarifying that the Constitutionās 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, Goldmanās resolution underscores Democratsā concerns over Trumpās repeated comments about serving beyond two terms, which some view as āanti-democratic and authoritarian.ā
Goldman urges bipartisan support to uphold the 22nd Amendment, amid fears that some Republicans might not view Trumpās statements as mere jokes.
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 canāt even be questioned about it, much less prosecuted for it. But when they use virtually the same logic to say the 22nd amendment doesnāt matter either, you think thatās 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?
What makes you think the court has to weasel their way around anything? Theyāve got full control. The only reasoning they need is āBecause fuck you thatās whyā. People didnāt do shit about it when Roe was struck down. People didnāt do shit when the SC said Trump is all but a king. People aināt gonna do shit if the SC says āfuck the 22nd, let him run anyway.ā
If you think that the American public gives half a shit, Iāll simply reply by gesturing broadly at the results of the 2024 election.
And the Supreme Court will tell them to sit down and shut up, and theyāll 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.
The 14th amendment approach did have some legitimate issues with it. If it worked, then I am convinced Abbott would have invoked some bullshit āBiden is creating an invasion at the borderā excuse to remove Biden from the ballot. Thatās why the decision ended up unanimous.
The 22nd amendmentās text is a whole lot clearer, and far less subject to interpretation. I can see a State saying āI donāt even need the Supreme Court to weigh in on this oneā. 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 canāt
focusdo is 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 doesnāt 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 āYeah, fuck the 22nd amendment.ā, 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 wouldnāt be enough to swing the election anyway, and Ā© 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 heās 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.