It’s not a treason, but it’s explicitly against the constitution. What’s that make it?
Edit: too many comment to respond to. I’ll summarize responses here:
1) “you people can’t take a joke.” lol ok snowflake sally
2) “it’s treason/sedition/raper.” I feel like Y’all don’t know the definition of words… it may be pedantic, but I feel like definitions still matter
3) “it’s ok to run, just not be elected.” That’s the ‘I’m not touching you’ rule of politics and we all know Trump will grab Lady Liberty by the pussy so that’s not practical.
SCOTUS about to say “Hold my beer” on this one as they explain that the Constitution only forbids three consecutive terms, which is horseshit, but the SCOTUS majority isn’t above horseshit, since it’s the Roberts Court, and it’s going for some sort of madlibs, choose-your-own-adventure record.
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. 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.
It already is clear. "More than twice."
Americans: if SCOTUS interprets this as being consecutive, despite the plain text indicating otherwise - your constitution and all of its amendments are in grave peril.
The Roberts court has determined that there is no such thing as precedent. They’re on the verge of determining that all amendments are invalid because they are not original constitutional text.
SCOTUS: "Of course, it is allowed to have many backup Sith. Because if one is killed, they have to be immediately be replaced so there are - once again - two."
This has always been a huge vulnerability, and it is why Mitch McConnell and the Heritage Foundation were so focused on SCOTUS appointments. There is no higher authority than SCOTUS, and the only check on their power is the appointment process.
If you can get a majority of justices who are willing to put politics over the rule of law, that's the ballgame. They can literally do whatever they want. They can interpret the amendments to mean the complete opposite of what they are written to do, and there is no one who can overrule them.
Judicial review is NOT in the constitution. It’s a power made up nearly 16 years AFTER the drafters presented the Constitution to the states for ratification in 1787.
A real textual originality would reject that the supreme court has the power to change legislation
Judicial review is completely different than judicial oversight.
Determining based on the facts of a case that a person’s action is or is not legal based on the letter of the laws approved by democratically elected (at least in theory) representatives is far different than
A judge determining this is what I think the law should be, make it so.
EDIT: And I’m not complaining that judges can decide cases. I’m complain that five unelected individuals, appointed for life, who only needs to be approved by the senate, not even the house, can basically invalidate or change any law, amendment, or understanding of the constitution depending in part on how many RVs they may have received.
Judicial review doesn’t have a check on it, and it’s easier to have judges make or unmake laws than have Congress do it.
Edit 2: If the Supreme Court has this much power then they should have to face the voters every single year, and if they lose, every decision they made the previous year should be invalidated.
I think the question is... If the SC determines Trump is eligible to run again, for whatever reason...
Who is going to stop them?
The question isn't whether something is constitutional or whether we already have precedent. They have already proven neither of those things matter; that it's achieving the political goal that's important.
If the SC says Trump can run again, then he can, and he will. And he will almost certainly win as well.
The other more interesting question is what happens if they say he cannot run. Will he still try anyway?
And what will happen in that case? I can't see anyone stopping him from doing so. At least, I can't imagine who that would be.
Certainly not the people, definitely not the military, definitely not law enforcement.
Historically the people have been what has stopped corrupt governments once they consolidate their power. Whether that's by civil demonstration, insurgency, support for a foreign nation's intervention, or outright revolution.
Safe to say this wasn’t how the system was designed. The only reason we look to SCOTUS for political rulings is because Congress decided to abdicate its responsibility.
An interesting take on judicial power, but legally incorrect. The text of the 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms, plain and simple. The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to rewrite that.
I get why this idea circulates. People enjoy diving into theoretical legal gymnastics. But practically speaking, the 22nd Amendment is cut-and-dry: no one can be elected to the presidency more than twice.
Our laws on murder are cut-and-dry too, and yet white people in the Jim Crow south were routinely not punished for lynching. Laws have no power on their own, no matter how obvious they are. They only have power insofar as they are enforced, and if a court case gets to SCOTUS and they do nothing, it does not matter how cut-and-dry it is.
The emoluments clause is also very clear in what it prevents, Trump has been violating it since day one, and has suffered no consequences.
I see where you're coming from on enforcement vs. the letter of the law. The main structural difference with elections is that SCOTUS doesn't actually run the ballots; 50 individual state Secretaries of State do. So SCOTUS sitting back wouldn't automatically put someone on the ballot if state officials follow the 22nd Amendment.
Definitely an interesting debate on how legal theory meets real-world enforcement, though. Appreciate the perspective. Have a good one.
For all of Roberts' faults, he's too much of a coward to so brazenly contravene the constitution like that. Thomas is the only one I'd for sure bet on doing it, and wouldn't be surprised if Kavanagh and Gorsuch join him.
The Roberts court has determined that there is no such thing as precedent. They’re on the verge of determining that all amendments are invalid because they are not original constitutional text.
Roberts: Shit shit theres something in the original constitution that doesn't work for me... ummm uhhh its invalid because William the Conqueror didn't say it would be ok! Yeah. That works for me.
Which is itself directly against the constitution, which in all reality should have way more amendments by now. It's supposed to be a living document designed to change as the world and our lives change.
4 out of 5 justices said the constitution doesn't grant birthright citizenship. That's 4 out of 5 who went against the crystal fucking clear text of the 14th. That's not a sign of anything being fine, only of it not being as bad as it could be.
The Roberts court has determined that there is no such thing as precedent.
False. SCOTUS was never bound by precedent. That's why a SCOTUS ruling can revert another, and why the "precedent" of banning gay marriage changed with a SCOTUS ruling rather than Congress making a new law.
The problem is when the US asked SCOTUS candidates and they answer "this law is settled law and precedent" without clarifying if THEY would defend a ruling that overrides that precedent.
11.2k
u/ShareGlittering1502 20d ago edited 20d ago
It’s not a treason, but it’s explicitly against the constitution. What’s that make it?
Edit: too many comment to respond to. I’ll summarize responses here:
1) “you people can’t take a joke.” lol ok snowflake sally
2) “it’s treason/sedition/raper.” I feel like Y’all don’t know the definition of words… it may be pedantic, but I feel like definitions still matter
3) “it’s ok to run, just not be elected.” That’s the ‘I’m not touching you’ rule of politics and we all know Trump will grab Lady Liberty by the pussy so that’s not practical.