Yes. This argument is so dumb, my head is hurting.
As far as I can tell, if they look at the word “elected” and say “pfft, that says ‘elected,’ but we can just ignore that and act like it doesn’t say ‘elected’ right there” — that’s giving up the pretense. That’s making clear that, no, it genuinely doesn’t matter what written words got passed into law, because we think it shouldn’t say that, is all.
I find that unacceptable.
Some people around here, sadly, seem to have interpreted the close electoral defeat we suffered last year to mean that no Democrat will ever be elected to anything ever again and the US is now a permanent one-party state and so shall be until the end of time.
Again - upon what precedents are you basing this idea that the wording of a statute has to be pedantically perfect in order for its clear meaning to be valid?
This is “Ain’t no rule says a dog can’t play basketball!” logic.
On the contrary, I would say it means what it says.
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.
If instead the bolded part said “hold” then that would say something different. If the writers wanted a person to not become President three times, why say elected and not “hold the office”?
Or are you saying every vice-president that took over upon the death or resignation of their President were elected President?
Nope. This is not an absent a rule to the contrary allows it.
To HOLD the office of the President you must satisfy conditions A, B & C
Same for the Vice-President
Furthermore if you satisfy condition D you cannot be elected President
I do not believe that Therefore if you meet condition D you cannot hold the office of President OR Therefore if you meet condition D you cannot be elected Vice-President completes that syllogism.
That is a perfect example of judicial activism. The law says A but it really means B.
Yes, Trump is already emperor in their minds.
I’ve become more aware recently, from posts here and comments on dailykos, that catastrophizing to the point of apoplexy is a significant weakness of Liberals and Canadians.
It’s simple. They didn’t think about it at the time. There is a bunch of stuff in the constitution that isn’t very well written or thought out. Examples: the entire 2nd amendment (neither written well nor thought out) and that insurrection thing in the 14th amendment (not thought out).
Being pure junk, the 2nd amendment has had to be interpreted in multiple cases by the Supreme Court, which is to say given the meaning it never had in the first place.
The 22nd amendment could have been written a bit better, but its intent is clear.
No, I’m arguing that my position is the clear meaning; you’re arguing that it means something other than what it clearly states.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a case where someone argued that, well, yes, this statute of course clearly states that X is not allowed, but they presumably meant that X and Y and Z are not allowed, so let’s just ignore that they limited it to X, at which point that argument could’ve been slapped down and a precedent established that uh no, it doesn’t work like that — because I’m not aware of anyone looking at such a statute and attempting so wretched an argument in the first place.
General election does not matter because Colorado is not a swing state.
If Trump is kept off the primary ballot, the GOP could change the convention rules. For example, they could just ignore the delegates from any state that won’t allow Trump on the primary ballot. Or they could run some pro-Trump Colorado “favorite son.” Second ballot, delegates go with Trump.
Maybe there is a hole in my last ideas, but if Trump is doing OK in the polls, they will find something.
Also, I really think Trump running for veep would work. I do not see Vance promising many times to step down if elected President and then refusing.
Can General Electric run for president? After all, a corporation is a type of person, and since it came into existence in the US, it must be a natural-born citizen under the 14th amendment. If the Founders didn’t mean for corporations to be president, why didn’t they say that only natural-born human citizens are eligible, or that only human persons born in the US are citizens?
To you. I’ll concede your point if you can show me documentation that 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the States say
When we said “elected to” we mean “become”
AND while the bill was in Congress there is documentation that they agreed
“Naw, we don’t need to change the language to clarify. Everyone will know what we mean.”
So Trump can’t be elected President (22nd). Can’t be elected VP (12th). If you close one eye and squint you could read that as saying he could be appointed Speaker and then get the Oval when the Pres and Veep resign. I’ll take my chances on that scenario.
MSNBC just ran a mashup of all Trump’s comments on the subject. It’s all coy…“should i run?” “people are saying I should” and “there are some things we could do…” He never advances a coherent plan or argument. So I’m sure any “plan” he has (something Steve Bannon has given a lot of thought to) involves something worse than hoping for favorable court decisions. I think he has no chance of success, whatever it is, but it could be ugly.
Your arguments are getting more desperate.
So is that a yes or a no?
Well actually… there is debate about the amendment in the Congressional record, and an actual lawyer/scholar who has studied these matters could probably render an opinion on all that.
IANAL, so I am being careful not to say things that aren’t obvious to a decently educated layman like myself. Basically, my argument depends on my never having heard of a “gotcha” case such as you think is possible, i.e., the constitution allowing the president to have a third term via being elected VP. If you think there is such a case, all you have to do is cite it, and I will have been proven wrong on this point.
In contrast, you and those on your side of the argument are implying (i.e., I am filling in your argument since you haven’t actually made one) either or both of the following:
-
There are such “gotcha” cases, i.e., precedent, which the SC could use to allow a new gotcha. Please prove that if you can with cites.
-
Regardless of whether there is precedent or not, this SC would allow such a gotcha. That’s a matter of opinion, and, frankly, I think the idea that the SC would allow it is highly unrealistic and stupid. But you can argue in favor of such an opinion again by citing past cases, etc.
In your opinion, what was the purpose of Congress deciding to pass the 22nd amendment?
The idea of a corporation running for president is actually a very good farcical idea for a movie in 2025.
It’s mine! I own the copyright and anyone who steals it from me owes me $100 million.
Fine, but I might pitch it without your permission. A 10% cut would be sufficient.
You need to take a third Trump term seriously because his supporters are starting to. Just read this thread, the MAGA and MAGA-curious Republicans are telling you why they would accept a third Trump term and how they would reconcile in their minds that it’s constitutional.
The AstroTurf is being laid as we speak.
You need to read outside of your bubble