I agree with you that the amendment should have been worded more clearly.
You, however, have the burden of proving that such clear intent has been ignored by the SC in the past and is likely to be ignored by this SC. It would helpful to be a legal scholar in order to make such an argument.
Actually, someone already posted a cite above from someone who knows about such matters. Scroll up.
Well, they did need an amendment for women to get the vote.
This is an important point. Just who will make a Republican Congress certify an election that ended Trump’s presidency?
Apart from Mike Pence, who examined every legal issue justifying Trump’s wishes before deciding to follow the law, will the current Vice-President or enough Republican congresscritters decide on the constitution over Trump? I’m not seeing much evidence that they are willing to do so.
If Democrats subsequently take to the courts, just who will enforce any favorable rulings from them? The Republican Congress? Pam Bondi? Kash Patel?
No twisting is involved. It’s the plain, direct meaning of the words that you object to and call “rules-lawyer…like a medieval rabbi trying to find a loophole in the Talmud.”
You keep coming back to the Congressional Record. OK, go to it. Show where it says they meant what you say they meant, rather than what they wrote.
I’ll check back later to see how that went.
Maybe in your head that’s what it says. It doesn’t say that on paper.
A less corrupt Senate approved Kavanaugh right after he went on that insane rant about how he was the victim of a conspiracy by the Clintons.
And the Senate in 2026? Which four seats up for grabs in 2026 do you think the Dems could take even in a very good year?
(my bolding)
My opinion is the 22nd Amendment drafters simply didn’t countenance a demagogue such as Trump.
It is interesting to contrast (a) today’s 22nd/12th Amendment arguments in favor of Trump being eligible to run for Vice President with (b) one conservative argument against Bill Clinton running for Vice President in 2008 on a ticket with Barack Obama – Constitutional scholar Dr. Matthew J. Frank writing for the National Review Online in July 2007:
Start with the question of what the 12th Amendment is about. It’s about how presidents are elected, namely by the votes of the electors in what’s popularly called the “electoral college” (a phrase not appearing in the Constitution). For whom could those electors cast their ballots, for either president or vice president, when the amendment was added in 1804? Any native-born citizen of at least 35 years of age who has “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States” (Article, II, section 1, clause 5).
The 22nd amendment, by stating that no person may be elected president more than twice, changed the rules for determining the validity of those ballots that electors cast. Now they may cast their ballots for any native-born citizen, 35 or older and resident in the U.S. for 14 years, who has not been elected twice to the presidency. Since the ordinary path to the presidency contemplated by the Constitution is via the ballots of these electors, then by any ordinary mode of legal reasoning, the 22nd Amendment changed the answer to the question—who is “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President”?—which ballot-casting electors must ask themselves. Now the class includes aliens, immigrants, citizens under 35, others failing the residency requirement, and persons previously elected twice (or having served one term elected and more than half of another’s term after succeeding from the vice presidency—another requirement of the 22nd Amendment).
It follows from the 22nd Amendment that Bill Clinton, being “constitutionally ineligible” to be elected president, is ineligible to become president by another route. He is, in short, ineligible to be president, and therefore ineligible to become vice president under the 12th amendment.
The brief 2007 LA Times opinion piece to which Franck is responding is also worth a read to get the opposing argument (which in 2025 would be arguing in favor of Trump’s eligibility to run for VP).
Changing the subject a bit:
Not to mention, do you believe this SCOTUS will stand in Trump’s way?
I don’t think Trump has Roberts and Barrett in his pocket any longer. I can’t predict the future, of course … but, yeah, to answer directly: I do believe this SCOTUS will stand in Trump’s way on this particular matter.
Trump wasn’t qualified last year either.
It’s not that it was OK to nominate him, or that it is OK to vote for a disqualified candidate. It’s that denying a November ballot line to a major party candidate would confuse the issue of which party is for democracy. You can say that the case against a third term is stronger than the 14th amendment issue, and I will agree. But the GOP can always come up with an excuse with surface plausibility to your average incompletely literate voter.
And it still comes to the question you asked before – how will it be enforced? Pennsylvania’s chief election official, the Secretary of State, is now a moderate Republican. By 2028, will it be a Democrat? And does that individual have the legal authority to deny a ballot position to a major party nominated ticket?
There also is the possibility of Trump winning as a write-in. Statewide write-ins have won before.
The ideal path is for SCOTUS to read the newspaper, see that Trump just said he isn’t joking about a third term, and issue an 9-0 advisory ruling – this week – saying that Trump cannot serve for a third term. They are putting the GOP on notice, in advance, so they do not waste their resources electing someone who cannot serve. Roberts should go on TV with all the justices before him, and say that. I believe it would be respected by the great majority of Americans. I know they won’t do it.
Whether THIS Supreme Court would allow such a thing is an open question. But suppose one or two of the sane justices were to die in the next three years and allow for fire-breathing MAGAssholes to be added? At that point, all bets are off.
I have a legitimate question:
Why do any of you pretend the guardrails of democracy “will hold” when they’ve already failed?
It’s unconstitutional to dismantle the DOE by decree.
Are buildings being shuttered, and people being fired? Positions emptied?
You can say only Congress has the power to dismantle the DOE and scream about how it’s SUPPOSED to work, but the DOE is functionally donezo by decree.
At this point, I do not have any faith that:
-we had a free and fair federal election in 2024
-that we will ever have another free and fair election
-are a functioning constitutional democracy.
We simply are not --there is no longer a functional set of checks and balances.
We are watching LIVE perjury with no consequences–
Now: Consider the desperation to get back in office, the win-at-all cost scheming, Elon saying “I’ll go to jail if he doesn’t win,” and openly thanking Elon for “getting PA…”
–I do not know how a rational person can watch the flagrant dismantling of norms and unchecked tampering in every facet to skew power to the Right–with the LEFT VOTING to give even more powers to the Right–Regular America is COOKED. It’s ALREADY OVER.
Why on earth would they start playing by the rules…? Why does anyone think they WON’T find some permanent hold on power?
What I am THE MOST AFRAID OF is that we are actively watching an authoritarian regime consolidate power while telling us “you’ll never have to vote again,” and we’re all just going “nah they can’t do that so that’s not going to happen” WHILE IT’S ALREADY HAPPENING.
I fully believe the UNITED States will fracture, and what scares me the most is that everyone is going to Ostrich themselves in denial until 2028. It’s already too late, it’s certainly going to be too late by then.
I do? Damned if I can see why. Seems that the plain wording should be the thing, unless the legislative history clearly says otherwise. Nobody’s produced any wording from the legislative history to substantiate another meaning.
Roberts on TV or on social media (again) has a better chance than an Advisory Ruling:
The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.
I think they’d have to collectively be a whole lot more married to the Rule of Law than I think they are today in order for them to go against this standard.
Well that makes no sense at all, considering the only reason that last sentence is tacked onto the 12th Amendment is because they were also keeping in mind succession to the Presidency.
Nobody’s arguing that Trump is a competent criminal. The issue is just whether or not he is a criminal.
And the answer is yes, inarguably. It’s a matter of public record that he has been found guilty of multiple crimes.
If the Democrats control Congress in January 2029 they can by tossing out any electoral votes he might receive as not being “regularly given.”
I have 0 faith in the democrats to actually fight fascism in an effective fashion.
They came to Wimbledon to play badminton, and it ain’t working out to their advantage.
Gladly. Wherein a comma is not a hyphen. Everyone knew what the intent was but SCOTUS ruled on the grammar and Congress had to go back and rewrite the law correctly.
Exactly. Attempted murder is not the same as murdering someone. I don’t think the question is will Trump try these stunts, but will he succeed