Would you take up arms to oppose an illegitimate Trump third term?

[IUINSB]

Not if Pete is on board.

IF?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What do you call the 45% of Republicans that think Trump should serve a 3rd term?

I call them thinking Trump should serve a third term.

 

[BradStevens]

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…

Elect
choose (someone) to hold public office or some other position by voting

————

Considering states were unable to keep Trump off the ballot, the first question seems to be whether or not he could be on ballots. I can envision about six members of SCOTUS taking the position that A XXII doesn’t prevent his appearance on ballots.

Furthermore, I can envision those same six using that definition of elect to set the unprecedented precedent of ruling A XXII unconstitutional insofar as it essentially stipulates that American citizens cannot vote for whomever they want. (Read the definition of elect carefully and you’ll see what I mean.)

For those who suggest that that’s the wrong definition of elect, I remind you that those six choose their whimsical definition, not you and I also remind you, Roe v. Wade….

One final point. Even if Trump is not on any given ballot, people have the option of writing in their candidate of choice.

So the question becomes, if Trump wins the electoral college through write-in votes, what next?

One final note, once upon a time said poster AlohaHoosier lost a certain wager that Trump would not get the RNC nomination. Doubters and skeptics beware…

One final comment: Once upon a time I flippantly stated “Good-bye Roe v. Wade,” after SCOTUS attained a 5-4 advantage. Goat and other liberal lawyers assured me that wasn’t possible if you studied the amendment. I did and the logic seemed flimsy and riddled with weaknesses. So if you’re not a lawyer here, STAY STRONG!

I stopped reading at your prediction that 6 justices of the SCt would find a constitutional amendment "unconstitutional."

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I stopped reading at your prediction that 6 justices of the SCt would find a constitutional amendment "unconstitutional."

Then you missed the part where we lawyers assured him Roe was safe because of "the amendment."

 

[iuwclurker]

Then you missed the part where we lawyers assured him Roe was safe because of "the amendment."

Thanks for that catch, Goat!

Incidentally, Brad’s objection was not a miss-type on my part. The point is, the current SCOTUS Big Six could easily rationalize an originalist interpretation of the original Constitution to argue A XXII is “unconstitutional.” The apparent illogic of my assertion is precisely the illogic they’re prone to use.*

Evidently Brad doesn’t think they wear logic repellent.

*As an aside, is there any measure coded into the Constitution to address contradictions inadvertently amended into the Constitution?

 

[BadWakeboarder]

I know this is a bizarre hypothetical, but I just talked to a very intelligent, very progressive friend now in Seattle. She insists that Trump will seriously try to stay in office after his second term and that he is already laying the groundwork for it (without a Constitutional amendment). I pushed back, but eventually said I would take up arms to prevent that, if need be. As I reflect on it, though, I'm not sure I would--maybe I would leave the country?

I don't know, but thought I'd ask the group. I'm particularly interested in seeing what our MAGA supporters' responses are. By illegitimate, I mean the Constitution doesn't change and the SCt doesn't rule that a third term is legally possible.

I don’t think your friend is ans intelligent as you think she is.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

Then you missed the part where we lawyers assured him Roe was safe because of "the amendment."

What about safe because of “the implication?”

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

I don’t think your friend is ans intelligent as you think she is.

Seattle is something.

Only city I’ve seen people on a park bench smoking crack across from a cop car.

Meanwhile family and children nervously walk by on their way to Pike Place Market.

The lawlessness is almost libertarian in a way.

 

[BradStevens]

Thanks for that catch, Goat!

Incidentally, Brad’s objection was not a miss-type on my part. The point is, the current SCOTUS Big Six could easily rationalize an originalist interpretation of the original Constitution to argue A XXII is “unconstitutional.” The apparent illogic of my assertion is precisely the illogic they’re prone to use.*

Evidently Brad doesn’t think they wear logic repellent.

*As an aside, is there any measure coded into the Constitution to address contradictions inadvertently amended into the Constitution?

Ok, you got me. Another satire/troll account.

 

[BradStevens]

I don’t think your friend is ans intelligent as you think she is.

Harvard Law. So not dumb, even if trapped in a bubble. A lot of intelligent people are.

Re Seattle, she just moved there. From NYC.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

Harvard Law. So not dumb, even if trapped in a bubble. A lot of intelligent people are.

Re Seattle, she just moved there. From NYC.

I think I’ve posted it here before but we have a physician friend - a single mother - who is basically a BlueAnon member.

She’s told us she thinks she needs to put aside her hatred of the second amendment because she might need a gun when Trump starts hunting democrats.

There is professional and academic intelligence and then there is real life intelligence. Your friend has 2 of the 3.

 

[snarlcakes]

Harvard Law. So not dumb, even if trapped in a bubble. A lot of intelligent people are.

Re Seattle, she just moved there. From NYC.

I think I’ve posted it here before but we have a physician friend - a single mother - who is basically a BlueAnon member.

She’s told us she thinks she needs to put aside her hatred of the second amendment because she might need a gun when Trump starts hunting democrats.

There is professional and academic intelligence and then there is real life intelligence. Your friend has 2 of the 3.

I have the answer. B#tches be crazy.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I call them thinking Trump should serve a third term.

Do you think he should?

 

[iuwclurker]

Ok, you got me. Another satire/troll account.Nah.

Ok, you got me. Another satire/troll account.

Nah. I’ve always had my own point of view and unabashedly critical of both sides.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Thanks for that catch, Goat!

Incidentally, Brad’s objection was not a miss-type on my part. The point is, the current SCOTUS Big Six could easily rationalize an originalist interpretation of the original Constitution to argue A XXII is “unconstitutional.” The apparent illogic of my assertion is precisely the illogic they’re prone to use.*

Evidently Brad doesn’t think they wear logic repellent.

*As an aside, is there any measure coded into the Constitution to address contradictions inadvertently amended into the Constitution?

There is no contradiction. The Amendment . . .ah . . .trumps any previous inconsistency.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Do you think he should?

Just stop making the whole world about Trump.

If you would ask “should any president be elected to a third term?” I would answer “No.”

 

[DANC]

UM, I've actually done this. It was awesome!

You have? I'm so shocked by that....... 😂😂

 

[DANC]

It’s fantastic

 

[DANC]

I think they would all hesitate just long enough to allow things to get really really ugly.

If I had to pick one that might stand up to Trump, I'd go with Pete... after he'd had several snorts to get his courage up.

It would be Marco. Vengence for the 'Little Marco' putdown. Like Michael in the Godfather - no one thinks he'd be the one to do it.

Those Cubans don't forget.

 

[DANC]

We will never find out if hes going to get a third term because he won’t survive that long. He’ll either get picked off by a Big Mac or another crazy conservative.

I was thinking by a Ukrainian.....

 

[IUCrazy2]

Just stop making the whole world about Trump.

If you would ask “should any president be elected to a third term?” I would answer “No.”

To me it isn't all about Trump, my answer to that question for any of them would be no. We can't get mad about questions like this, well, because:

Rep. Ogles Proposes Amending the 22nd Amendment to Allow Trump to Serve a Third Term

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Andy Ogles introduced a House Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow a President to be elected for up to but no more than three terms. The language of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

ogles.house.gov

It is at least a popular enough idea for that to happen.

 

[DANC]

you do realize people threatening to leave happens on both sides when their side loses. Most don't follow through.

Name someone who threatened to leave if Kamala was elected, HIck.

 

[DANC]

Then you missed the part where we lawyers assured him Roe was safe because of "the amendment."

What Amendment said abortion is legal?

 

[DANC]

Harvard Law. So not dumb, even if trapped in a bubble. A lot of intelligent people are.

Re Seattle, she just moved there. From NYC.

My dad worked as maintenance supervisor at an assisted living/nursing home place.

One of the kitchen workers was a Harvard Law grad. Smart as hell with zero social skills. Not saying your friend is that, but the more I know about Harvard, the less I'm impressed with a degree from there.