…so are they gonna flip 14 seats in the Senate next year, then?
Because that’s just the START of what they’d have to do to make it happen.
Preventing a Democrat president from holding office for more than two terms.
I offer you their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I had always assumed that the opening clause meant that it was to be interpreted as authorizing a state to have a militia, but the court ignored that obvious interpretation.
This thread seems to assume that there will be a legitimate election that Trump can win, but that seems unlikely. Trump will use his presidential immunity to arrest the Democratic candidate and accuse them of treason. Any Democratic electors will join them.
I just got through telling you that I don’t give a shit about what it “was meant to say” or “what it was supposed to say,” adding that — instead — I’m interested in what it does say, and what it in fact says. And your response is to ask me what I think their purpose was.
I don’t know how I can make this clearer: their purpose in doing something doesn’t interest me; the something they did is what interests me.
If you want to ignore what they actually wrote when it comes to the “elected” part — or if someone else wants to ignore what they wrote when it comes to the “no person shall” part, to swap in ‘any person can’ — my answer to either of you would be the same: hey, I’m just looking at what they wrote; I’m not talking about what I want the law to be, or what they wanted it to be; just what the law, as written, is.
If you’re using the 20th century definitions of “well-regulated” and “militia”, sure. In 1789 “militia” would have been understood to mean “the full corpus of able-bodied adult men”, and “well-regulated” meaning “equipped” since soldiers at the time were expected to provide their own rifles. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure people would be armed so they could be called on to defend against Native raiders or to catch rampaging criminals (since uniformed professional police forces weren’t a thing yet either).
Your interpretation would actually be a case of disregarding the intent of the text in favor of pedantics. You could argue that since we no longer rely on ad hoc posses for law enforcement or national defense that the amendment has outlived its purpose, but that is something that should be addressed with a new amendment.
Here’s the scenario I foresee.
- In 2028, Donald Trump declares he is entitled to a third term because Biden stole the 2020 election from him. He announces he is therefore cancelling the 2028 elections and will remain in office.
- When questioned about the possible illegality of this action, Trump issues an Executive Order overturning the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court rules, along party lines, that a President has the authority to issue whatever Executive Orders are necessary in order to keep a Republican in office.
- Congress looks at the poll numbers and declines to impeach Trump.
- MAGA supporters say they’re pretty sure they remember that Clinton and Obama had three terms and you didn’t hear the liberals complaining when that happened.
- Fox News will run a lead story about a lost kitten.
The president does not have the power to cancel an election. Elections are run by the states on a schedule set by the Constitution. This is not a Westminister system.
So that would mean he’s not president of the United States anymore, right? Seeing as there’s no longer a polity called the United States nor a Constitution that establishes a presidency thereof.
Why is there still a Supreme Court if the US has been dissolved?
Same question as above.
Same question.
Will presumably have been burned to the ground by Mad Max-style wasteland raiders at this point.
Fanfic about King Donald I, God-Emperor of the Northern Wastes, should probably go in CS.
If that’s your idea of jurisprudence I wouldn’t expect you to make it far on the bench, then.
Trump remembers that gift the Supreme Court gave him. You remember the one, right? The one where he is incapable of committing a crime in the course of his duties? That’s how Trump cancels an election. He doesn’t need to navigate any obstacle courses. He just needs to remind everyone that there are no laws that apply to him because he’s special. He has always thought this way and his talk of a third term goes all the way back to Hillary’s campaign “spying” on him. But now he’s got the court’s approval to do whatever he wants as long as he is President. Therefore, he must be President forever. He cannot get in trouble for it and he will get in trouble if he loses the position. So what do we suppose he will do?
Please indicate where the Constitution states that cancelling elections is a duty of the president.
If your argument is “Trump is king now and he can ignore the Constitution and do whatever he wants forever”, then you are quite simply wrong.
I’m definitely stealing that line.
Trump: there will be a third reich.
This has been said by absolutely nobody, of course.
Maybe no one has said it specifically but Little Nemo sure came close to expressing the sentiment.
And I don’t see that SCOTUS has granted DJT a get out of jail free card. They did say they are the only ones who can determine if an act is illegal or an official act that is allowed. We don’t really know yet how they will rule on this. Roberts and Coney Barrett have already pushed back on his bullshit more than I expected.
Finally, I’m pretty sure the 3rd term talk is an attempt to distract from the Signal controversy and a desire to troll the Democrats. It seems to me both of those things have been successful.
A dairy company in the US city of Portland, Maine settled a court case for $5m earlier this year because of a missing comma.
Three lorry drivers for Oakhurst Dairy claimed that they were owed years of unpaid overtime wages, all because of the way commas were used in legislation governing overtime payments.
The state’s laws declared that overtime wasn’t due for workers involved in “the canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: 1) agricultural produce; 2) meat and fish products; and 3) perishable foods”.
The drivers managed to successfully argue that because there was no comma after “shipment” and before “or distribution”, they were owed overtime pay. If a comma had been there, the law would have explicitly ruled out those who distribute perishable foods.
Because there was confusion, the US Court of Appeals ruled in their favour, benefiting around 120 of the firm’s drivers. David Webbert, the lawyer who helped bring the case against the company, told reporters at the time that the inclusion of a comma in the clause “would have sunk our ship”. (He didn’t respond to interview requests from the BBC.)
He says US courts have become increasingly textual – “they’ve looked more and more at the words on the paper rather than the testimony of the people who used those words on the paper.”
Seems like a precedent to me. This Supreme Court has grasped at smaller straws to make decisions before.
That’s not constitutional law. Feel free to cite the “smaller straws”–that’s the whole point.
Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Nowhere does it say that the president has the power to impose tariffs, yet he does it anyway. This president has no regard for the Constitution, nor does the Congress, nor does the Supreme Court. They have all taken the position that a dictatorship is fine and dandy as long as it’s one of their guys in charge. If you’re relying on the system of checks and balances to keep democracy alive, you’re ignoring the evidence. I think the only thing that has a chance to stop fascism is that a grossly overweight sedentary senior has an excellent chance of death.
My guess is different.
It’s common for strongman leaders to overreach, and DJT’s third term talk is an example. I think Donald sincerely wants to try for a third term, and that’s why he keeps on floating the idea. But MAGA probably has to win one or two more terms, more or less under the traditional election rules, before it can totally throw them out.
Whether MAGA can win one or two more terms, I wonder.
There is a law saying he can impose tariffs for the sake of national security. Congress passed the law, so it meets the Constitution.
It’s like how the President can start wars without a declaration of war. Why? Because Congress passed a law saying he could.
A lawless president isn’t going to let the law stop him.