Trump isn't ineligible to be president. He's only ineligible to be a candidate. The only things lawyers love more than loopholes are technicalities.
Would you take up arms to oppose an illegitimate Trump third term?
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
The 22nd only mentions elections, so a VP Trump just might be eligible to *serve* as President.
A ratified Constitutional Amendment CANNOT be "unconstiutional" since it becomes integral to the Constitution. It can be repealed by ANOTHER ratified Amendment, but that would seem to be the only real loophole.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn recently.
Didn’t happen though. Not possible to do by EO.Biden set precedent with his EO that made the ERA part of the constitution.
Statement from President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment | The White House
I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on theirbidenwhitehouse.archives.gov
See ya in court.
Made me a little queasy writing that.
If you are enamored with the "intent" of the persons responsible for any part of the Constitution, and many Trumpers are, it takes some real pretzel logic to argue that the intent of the 22nd A was not to limit a person from serving more than 2 terms as POTUS.
Obviously they didn't leave the loopholes there on purpose. But they are still there.
It would be interesting to see if this was discussed during the framing process.
The "texturalists" don't care about intent that they can't back up with actual text, and will even then twist that text to meet the "intent" they want to claim.
Thomas Jefferson expressed this sentiment in a letter dated January 1805, in which he wrote:
My opinion originally was that the President of the United States should have been elected for 7 years, and forever ineligible afterward. I have since become sensible that 7 years is too long to be irremovable, and that there should be a peaceable way of withdrawing a man in midway who is doing wrong. The service for 8 years, with a power to remove at the end of the first four, comes nearly to my principle as corrected by experience; and it is in adherence to that that I determine to withdraw at the end of my second term.
The danger is that the indulgence and attachments of the people will keep a man in the chair after he becomes a dotard, that reelection through life shall become habitual and election for life follow that. General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after 8 years. I shall follow it. And a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.
Interesting read
House Debate on the 22nd Amendment
teachingamericanhistory.org
What exactly does that have to do with anything and how is equal rights a bad thing?Biden set precedent with his EO that made the ERA part of the constitution.
Statement from President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment | The White House
I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on their
See ya in court.
Made me a little queasy writing that.
My post was entirely tongue in cheek.
I didn't support his 1st or 2nd term, let alone all the talk of a third. The guy runs his mouth about ridiculous stuff to give himself things to concede in a negotiation. Canada as 51st state, Greenland, Ukraine, Gulf of America, all things big or small are fair game.
I’m feeling a panic attack brewing. Please stop.
Seriously every once in awhile if I’m reading the news before bed, I feel panicky and can’t sleep. It’s like you’re in Seattle and it’s rainy and grey everyday and it feels like the sky is falling on you. You want the sun but you can’t have it. It’s like a claustrophobic feeling you have no control over. The direction of this country right now makes me feel the same. I vote every 4 years and I accept the results. Sometimes your guy wins sometimes they lose. But something just feels different right now and it’s a very uncomfortable feeling.
Coming back to this: numbers are about 50/50 now with an interesting political diversity on each side. Some of the loudest Trump critics here wouldn't take up arms to defend their notion of democracy and some who spend a lot of time defending Trump say they would.
Honestly, yes, I do. I think coups only happen with the tacit support of the military, and I have faith that our military would not go along with any sort of unconstitutional continuance of Trump's rule. I hope we never have to test that, because even a good outcome would be bad, but I do think it would be a "good" outcome.
Yes it does actually. Definitionaly the US was meek until Pearl Harrbor.
The British, Native Americans, Mexicans, and Spanish would disagree (among others).
. . . and you're too educated to put your faith in pithy sayings.
Wars fought on what is now our soil are of no consequence. It’s our land. No Mexican, European or native could’ve hoped to retain it.
Or Canadian for that matter.
Wars fought abroad are unnecessary. We don’t need to be involved.
Did you get a C- in Jr. History?
Perhaps Europe would be a better place today had we not gotten involved.
As it is. It’s decrepit.
Your views on the past 80 years are very strange to me.
The past 80 years are just a lucid dream for Farva, because he perpetually exists in 1650.
You and I have different definitions of the word lucid.
Had Hitler moved east and toppled the soviets, and the U.S. never had to spend all the blood and treasure on restoring Europe or fighting the Cold War.
Perhaps things are better today.
Hitler’s Germany was pretty evil in my view. So was the USSR.
Maybe we bet on the wrong horse.
