Technically true, but one would assume an obligation to explain how it is related to national security. Apparently national security is at stake one moment, then it isn’t, then it is again. Rinse and repeat. Congress has the duty to ask “what does this have to do with national security?”, but the cowards don’t dare make a peep.
To me, Trump’s formal emergency declarations, justifying unilateral tariffs, are invalid because no true emergency arose around the time he took office. The fentanyl situation has not been getting worse lately.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely reluctant to weigh in on what is or is not a legitimate emergency. They should.
An example of a legitimate emergency is that when Franklin Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933, a majority of U.S. banks were closed due to runs, or fear of runs. For the past few days, most Americans could not get their money out of the bank to buy food. The banking crisis could not be first addressed by Congress because it would get worse while being debated. So FDR had to take emergency actions (close remaining banks) in hope that Congress would enact deposit insurance, which it quickly did, allowing banks to safely reopen. No remotely comparable emergency now exists.
IMHO, another element (or maybe just a rationale for why these demagogues do this) is a well-documented ‘negotiating tactic’ of Trump’s: start with an impossibly draconian, outlandish, shocking, unsettling, disorienting, and unacceptable offer that ‘softens the ground’ for later compromises that are only slightly less repugnant.
[ex: Rather than just kill your children outright, how about if I simply take them from you?]
IOW, his endless bellicose, existential rhetoric is a tactic he uses to subtly keep shifting the Overton window rightward.
This is a crucial distinction.
We have a precedent of someone being president who was not elected president: Gerald Ford.
So here’s how that works: two stooges are elected P and VP in 2028. The VP stooge resigns. Trump is appointed VP. The P stooge resigns. Trump is now president… again. And he wouldn’t even have to run for the office, or be elected.
Would the current SCotUS uphold that? I think the odds are greater than 50/50.
The law is the law. It doesn’t really require objective evidence he’s telling the truth.
Congress could change the law if they wanted, but it is what it is.
That only works if the VP appointment is approved by both houses of Congress.
I dunno, sounds dangerously like “4D chess” again.
Trump says extreme things because he believes extreme things. Plus he has virtually zero understanding on economics, geopolitics and countless other topics.
His success is basically because he’s ignorant in popular ways (the misconceptions about tariffs, trade deficits etc are the same misconceptions that “the man on the street” is likely to have) and he’s also a bigot in popular ways. There is no genius behind the scenes doing this for show.
So, I agree with those that say that the Constitution clearly prohibits Trump from being President beyond January 20, 2029. To me, the 22nd and 12th Amendments lock him out.
So, how will it be enforced? What will red state AG’s and election officials do when Trump tries to get on the Primaries that begin in early 2028? Will they do what the Constitution clearly states, and keep him off the ballots, or will they cave to the intense pressure they will get from MAGA fascists?
And at that point, I think coalitions of people who believe in actual Democracy & the rule of law need to step forward and be ready to legally challenge this in the courts.
I don’t think Red States will have enough people with enough courage to try and stop Trump. It will be up to Blue States, AG’s in Purple States, and the courts to keep him out of office after January 20, 2029.
This is what I do not understand.
As for primaries, the old favorite son dodge would work fine. A leading Republican, in that state, who clearly has no prospect of getting the nomination, gets on the ballot pledging their delegates will vote for Trump on the convention second ballot (since, at least in some states, they legally have to vote for the favorite son on the first ballot). Democrats will sputter that there was a brokered convention, with little effect.
If Trump’s health remains pretty much as now, someone, tell me a plausible way the favorite son dodge would fail, because I cannot think of one.
As for not putting the GOP ticket on the November ballot in a red or swing state, I also have the suvinga question on that one – how will it be enforced? I cannot see my Governor Shapiro putting himself in the position of seeming frightened to have Trump on the ballot.
Another question is whether MAGA-adjacent swing voters respect the constitution enough to vote against a ticket just because it has DJT’s name on it, whether at the top or bottom. Governor Shapiro would say that we should vote against Trump out of respect for the Constitution. I can see that argument hurting the GOP a little, but just a little.
From my POV, it doesn’t represent genius or 4-D chess, though. Just something he learned early on, as the heir to wealth and the power that wealth tends to inherently convey.
Same old Roy Cohn playbook kind of move. It’s just kind of his programming at this point.
So you’re saying the United States of America can’t exist without the Constitution in place.
Which I guess means you’re not aware that the United States of America did exist without the Constitution.
Show me where in the Constitution it says that the President can cancel an election by calling out an armed mob to overthrow the government.
It doesn’t. But Trump tried to do that.
Your ongoing arguments that Trump is a reasonable man and will obey the law don’t hold up to Trump’s record.
Trump has repeatedly broken the law in the past. He is breaking laws right now. So we should take it seriously when he talks about laws he might be planning on breaking in the future.
- How will Trump enforce this if elections are run by the states? Arrest the Sec’ies of State? Go to the polls and shoot anyone trying to vote? Have the Postmaster General impound all mail in ballots? Be specific.
- And you think that won’t be overturned in a lower court less than 5 minutes after issued|
- This one actually has merit. In Korematsu, the SC ruled that the Constitution be damned if national security is at stake. In the Gold Cases, the SC ruled that the government has unspoken plenary powers qua a national government that supercedes the Constitution.
- What’s new?
- Just don’t read your Facebook feed.
- No. It’ll be a hit piece on AOC or Warren or Sanders.
“Tried” being the operative word. And it was the certification of the election, not the election itself. Whether or not he can run is the first hurdle to overcome.
Who cares whether fascism is ‘conservative’ or not? It’s an extension of the same movement to the right that we’ve been experiencing for several decades now.
You’re just bandying words here.
“Don’t speak too soon, for the wheel’s still in spin.” - Dylan
It’s also the literal meaning of the words, which is why a child could make it.
The other thing you’re missing is that this is an amendment to an existing Constitution. An amendment isn’t a new start. It only makes those changes to the pre-existing language of the Constitution that are specified in the amendment; everything else remains the same.
Prior to the 22nd Amendment, one could be elected President or succeed to the Presidency regardless of prior service in that office, if one was at least 35 years of age and had been a citizen from birth. The 22nd Amendment made a change to the rules for eligibility to be elected President. The default assumption should be that the pre-existing language of the Constitution should still cover all other situations.
This Supreme Court? 
You’re joking, right?
All they’ve got to do in this case is rule that the words as they are actually written are indeed what the Constitution says, without reading anything else into them. That’s all.
They protected Trump from the Emoluments Clause, from the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and put the President above the law, all on much more specious and strained grounds than this. This will be a piece of cake for them.
True - the question wasn’t whether or not this was a difficult route, only that it is a possible route that could be seen as legal.
Depending on how the rest of the 2028 elections turn out, it might not even be that difficult.
Good. Go find the legislative history that shows that the authors intended more than they actually put down on paper.
Why should the burden of proof be on those arguing that the words of the Constitution mean what they literally say? ISTM that it should fall on those who claim it means more than what it actually says.
[quote=“bordelond, post:106, topic:1016371”]
Critics of backdoor presidencies would argue that the 22nd Amendment was intended to create a new class of ineligibility , along with age, citizenship, and birthplace. [/quote]
I agree that that’s exactly what it did. It created a new class of ineligibility for being elected.
I disagree with his logical jump after that.
Were the authors of the 22nd Amendment in a hurry? Did they have to finish drafting it by COB on the day they were working on it? Under the gun, so they took it on the run botched the wording?
I doubt it, but what other excuse is there for assuming they didn’t mean what they said?
Not to mention, do you believe this SCOTUS will stand in Trump’s way?
I think Shapiro, or whomever is in power in whatever state, will look frightened if they pretend that it’s OK for Trump to be on the ballot. I think there needs to be forceful dismissal of Trump off of any state’s ballot, regardless of whether it’s red, blue, or purple. And furthermore, there needs to be maximum legal challenges ready to roll off the presses the minute he announces he’s going try to run for POTUS or as VP, too, since that’s also unconstitutional.
It will take people - a mixture of people - who have the courage to stand up to Autocracy. This is why it’s very important that we don’t make anything easy for Trump during the next 3 years. Whenever he breaks the law or does something unethical, there needs to be an opposition that will stand up against him.
These laws don’t enforce themselves. People have to enforce laws. That’s the problem that Trump presents. He attacks the people themselves, because he knows that’s how he gets around the law.
Because, with all the language of “he”, “him”, and “man” included in the founding documents and subsequent laws of the ensuing 200 years it would be very, very easy to exclude women from having rights or standing before the courts?
When a honeybee stings a person, the bee generally dies. You don’t have to worry about the same honeybee stinging you a second time.
A significant percent of inmates who unsuccessfully attempt to escape prison go on to make a second atttempt. Also, on their release, the general recidivism rate among those who attempted escape while incarceration is higher upon release than those incarcerated for other offenses.
If you were a prison warden, and you had to deal with an inmate who made a failed attempt at escape, would you be more likely to assume the honeybee model – one and done – or the escape attempt model – a high likelihood of a subsequent attempt, either using the same means, or – more likely – a different means?
And why would or should we view a person with Donald Trump’s history through the lens of the honeybee model?