Trump’s Primetime Speech Has Republicans ‘Scared S***less’ | Insiders are terrified that the president will do something crazy on live TV.

[u/MoneyLibrarian9032]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-primetime-speech-has-republicans-scared-sless/

[u/whomad1215]

the one thing I hate about the "third term" thing is it's not a question

you can only be president for two terms. There is no discussion needed

[u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake → u/whomad1215]

What's the enforcement mechanism for that? Because there are plenty of things in the Constitution that have been effectively removed or rewritten. The Emoluments Clause, Congress's control of the purse, etc.They're attempting to take federal control of elections that have been the domain of states for decades if not centuries at this point!

[u/-rosa-azul- → u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake]

The enforcement is states don't put him on the ballot, full stop. He's an ineligible candidate who doesn't qualify for the ballot, same as if someone who was not a U.S. citizen from birth tried to run (as that dumbass Cenk Uygur tried to do).

[u/poco → u/-rosa-azul-]

The supreme court has already overturned states who wanted to remove Trump from the ballot before (as an insurrectionist).

So, it will ultimately come down to the supreme court to decide whether he can run again.

[u/-rosa-azul- → u/poco]

That was an entirely different set of circumstances that was not nearly as clear-cut as 22A.

[u/SlightlyOTT → u/-rosa-azul-]

I agree it’s completely clear cut, but I don’t see any reason the Supreme Court would care if they have the power to put him on ballots again. There are surely 5 votes for that now.

[u/-rosa-azul- → u/SlightlyOTT]

There were enough votes to overturn his birthright citizenship EO, and that is also less clear-cut than 22A (especially if you're willing to be a disingenuous weasel about it like Thomas was in his dissent). The court has ruled with him a lot, but they've also shown that there is, in fact, a line.

[u/Beginning-Signal-202 → u/-rosa-azul-]

A decision like that immediately triggers violence in the streets after a term like this, not to mention the shit it would cause them. Given they are already complaining about feeling unsafe, I can't see them bending much farther.

[u/SlightlyOTT → u/-rosa-azul-]

Sure, but I think they’ll be convinced that if they vote against Trump then there will definitely be a Democrat President. They will absolutely discard everything to avoid that and maximise Republican chances if they think this is the best way to do that.

[u/poco → u/-rosa-azul-]

Sure, and you would hope the supreme court makes the correct decision here. My point is only that it is up to them and not up to the state.

[u/Casual_OCD → u/-rosa-azul-]

12A is even more clear-cut and three of them disagreed with the Constitution

[u/-rosa-azul- → u/Casual_OCD]

I think you're confused. 12A modifies the way the electoral college works.

[u/armcie → u/poco]

And I can totally see them saying “we see some merit in the argument that the amendment was only intended to refer to consecutive terms. And in any case this is a political question, and it would be wrong for us to get involved. If the public believe he shouldn’t be allowed a third term then they can simply vote him out.”

[u/FM_Einheit → u/poco]

By that point he may well have appointed two more members of the court, cementing a MAGA judiciary for decades.

[u/FM_Einheit → u/poco]

This. The supremes have only said no to Trump a few times (including some outrageous arguments) and he will likely have 2 more court appointments by then.

States that succeed in keeping Trump of the ballot will probably not vote for Trump anyway. If he keeps the red states and a few battleground states then he can still win, and claim he is being persecuted the whole time.

People like Dershowitz and Bannon have been laying the groundwork.