Then he and the Republicans just declare him the winner and dare the states to do anything about it.
Any of us who could not have come up with the “Alternate Slate of Electors” scheme on our own are probably poorly qualified to opine on exactly what games could be played … the next time.
If your an official in a deep red state, and he wants on the ballot, are you going to keep him off the ballot? Trump won something like 32 or 33 states. I worry there won’t be enough duty-minded people in the GOP in red states who will keep him off the ballot. I hope I’m wrong.
Yes because they already did. Trump, as an insurrectionist, should not have been eligible to run for the 2024 election and yet here we are. What was their excuse again? Wasn’t it something along the lines of how if Trump was so bad, Congress should have done something about it? This nicely dovetailed with Congress’ argument about how if Trump was so bad the courts could do something about it after his term.
The Supreme Court also explicitly told Trump that anything that falls under the very broad banner of his “official duties” cannot by definition be illegal. So Trump will declare it his official duty to remain President for life and there is nothing they can do about it because they are the ones who granted him that unlimited power, knowing full well he would abuse it as he sees fit. It does not matter what any law, up to and including the Constitution says when Trump has a permanent exception (that he himself gets to define) to all laws.
Having said that, I think the whole issue of the 22nd Amendment is moot anyhow. Trump isn’t going to run for office. He’s going to declare himself the only option and the immediate winner with a 100% mandate (or maybe more, he will say 105% because all the illegal immigrants “voted” for him too). There won’t be an election. Trump is now President of the United States until he dies. Please note, I would love nothing more than to be wrong about this.
Their “excuse” was that the text of the 14th amendment explicitly empowers Congress to enforce it. Just because you don’t like the result doesn’t make the decision invalid.
The president’s official duties do not include assigning himself powers not delineated in the Constitution.
That’s not what the ruling says. The ruling says that the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the president’s official duties are. It was a power grab for the court itself, not for Trump.
Thank the Founders that Trump isn’t usurping any of the powers clearly granted to the Congress and only the Congress in the Constitution.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that Trump is omnipotent. Silly me. I’ll show myself out.
Stop putting words in people’s mouth. Nobody is saying that he’s “omnipotent”. Just that no one will stop him.
So, all that shit that DOGE is doing is a constitutionally granted power of the Executive branch?
Why? Is DOGE running for a third term?
Thank you for your non-answer.
Who claims this?
Firstly, as pointed out elsewhere, Trump has been trampling all over the constitution e.g. freedom of speech. So the argument of “constitution sez”, in itself, is a non-starter.
Now, in the practical terms of getting Trump on the ballot in every state, yes that’s a real hurdle. But what’s the quickest we’ve seen the supreme court act in recent years? It was when there was a prospect of Trump not being on the ballot due to his felony conviction.
So, what I expect will happen, assuming Trump still has the party behind him in 2028 (I don’t see anyone de-throning him, but a cratered economy might make a fourth run at president untenable), is some declaration of an emergency.
And the conservative justices will sprint to the court in their pajamas (not that different to their official robes) to rubber stamp it through.
No, I don’t think they’re going to say, “the 22nd Amendment explicitly bars such a person from being president again.”
After all, it unquestionably doesn’t do that! The best one can argue is that it IMPLICITLY bars that outcome. Which is why we’re having this debate: the amendment fails to be explicit about barring a third term by any means, only mentioning election.
I would mention that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is stalled a good ways short of 270. Any reason why this would work out better?
Saying Congress has that power, doesn’t say that part of the Amendment doesn’t have any effect absent legislation. Is the Constitution not the law of the land? Then it is the law of the land, even if Congress doesn’t exercise the power delegated to it by the Constitution.
“Aww, Congress didn’t pass any laws about insurrection, so people can become President even if they’ve tried to overthrow the government. The Constitution is no roadblock.” That makes no sense whatsoever. (But that’s been a feature of a number of recent SCOTUS decisions, so that’s no surprise.)
There have been plenty of First Amendment cases before the courts over the years. I’m sure that SCOTUS didn’t really need Congressional legislation to enable our rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc. It can act without enabling legislation.
Count me with the posters that say he won’t run again. But, I can see him manufacturing a pretext that will “temporarily” delay the election and keep him in power indefinitely.
The “Won’t run again because he doesn’t have to” category.
Agreed.
Note that the same clause is in the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. So by this theory, the radical Republicans didn’t want to abolish slavery for all time, just to give Congress the right to let it come and go.
Also note that this would apply to the whole fourteenth amendment. So SCOTUS would just be ignoring the whole amendment, instead looking at legislation. Due process of law? Only if a GOP Congress says. Same for the birthright citizenship.
Almost surely, the “appropriate legislation” clauses were meant to allow Congress to strengthen the amendments, such as letting Congress put in criminal penalties for violations. It wasn’t meant for the amendments to just be suggestions of things Congress might want to do.
At this moment Texas Governor Greg Abbott is refusing to perform the legal duty of scheduling a special election in a House district centered in Houston on the grounds of nebulous “problems” with previous elections there.
Of course, no mention that many of those problems are caused by underfunding by the red state legislature nor that the seat will almost assuredly be won by a Democrat.
With a crashing economy, elections are the GOP’s biggest threat. So expect to see attacks on elections ramping up for the next three years until Republicans just decide that they’re entirely too much trouble to hold at all.