Trump won’t rule out seeking a third term (1 Viewer)

[zztop]

Who could have predicted this [unsurprising] revelation?

Trump won’t rule out seeking a third term in the White House, tells NBC News ‘there are methods’ for doing so

President Donald Trump said in a Sunday-morning phone call that he was “not joking” about a third term, adding that “it is far too early to think about it.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[faceman]

NPR put out an article today spelling out ways it could be done. I didn’t read the entire thing, but they mentioned going to SCOTUS to rule that he can only have 2 consecutive terms and since his terms weren’t consecutive he can run in 2028.

Also, he could run for VP and if his running mate wins, they could resign.

Also, he could be elected Speaker of the House and both POTUS and VP resign.

I quit reading at that point because it was too depressing.

He can't the wording is clear.

As Trump says "there are methods" for serving a third term, here's what to know about the 12th and 22nd Amendments

President Donald Trump again suggested he may try to run for a third term in office, despite limits set by the 12th and 22nd Amendments.

www.cbsnews.com

the opening line of the 22nd Amendment states: "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."

 

[faceman]

The consecutive thing isn’t real because the language just doesn’t allow that.

The elected thing (ie resignation) is real per the law but it’s pathetic and if people vote for that, then what’s the point of America anyway

Correct and you answered a question I had awhile back. If Gerald Ford would have won in 76, he would not have been
eligible to run in 1980.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

It's been quite a while, so I decided to check out what they thought about this subject in tiger and a "debate" broke out on whether or not the 22nd Amendment was Constitutional!!!




There's a reason why this state is red!

 

[Booker]

He can't the wording is clear.

As Trump says "there are methods" for serving a third term, here's what to know about the 12th and 22nd Amendments

President Donald Trump again suggested he may try to run for a third term in office, despite limits set by the 12th and 22nd Amendments.

www.cbsnews.com

the opening line of the 22nd Amendment states: "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."

Yeah, I don't see where it matters whether the terms are consecutive or not, the language is pretty clear.

 

[faceman]

Yeah, I don't see where it matters whether the terms are consecutive or not, the language is pretty clear.

I don't see Vance winning either. He doesn't have the cult of personality Trump has

 

[brandon]

It’s no different than my daughter saying she’s not ruling out getting a pony for Christmas. It’s not sticking my head in the sand to say that’s not going to happen and the whole framing of it is not real.

The consecutive thing isn’t real because the language just doesn’t allow that.

The elected thing (ie resignation) is real per the law but it’s pathetic and if people vote for that, then what’s the point of America anyway

I just cannot believe you are still this naive. You think we're still operating within the bounds of the Constitution when we're literally deporting people to gulags without due process? The only thing that will check Donald Trump is Donald Trump, and he has no track record of ever checking himself.

Let me try to spell this out:

1 - The Constitution is a piece of paper. It has no physical ability to stop anyone from doing anything without an enforcement mechanism.
2 - The branch tasked with enforcing the Constitution is the problem.
3 - The branches of government tasked with checking the executive have either A) completely deferred to the executive (the legislative branch) or, B) have ruled that the executive branch has full immunity for (largely undefined) official acts (the judicial branch).
4 - Even if the legislative and/or judicial branch decides to attempt to check the executive branch, they can't because they don't have any actual coercive abilities (despite what you may think). You cannot coerce an executive with the power of the entire federal executive branch, including the military, plus national guards that can be federalized, with a sergeant-at-arms.

You've got to start realizing that the Constitution only works if the people in power, and more specifically, the executive branch, want it to work. It's not magic. It's just words on paper.

We are already post-Constitutional. We're already here. Today.

Saying "the language doesn't allow that," to hijack your pony analogy, is more like telling your 6-month-old to stop crying because you have rules against crying. Quite frankly, your rules don't matter to the 6-month-old and that kid is gonna stop crying when he gets what he wants. It really doesn't matter what your rules say.

 

[superchuck500]

I just cannot believe you are still this naive. You think we're still operating within the bounds of the Constitution when we're literally deporting people to gulags without due process? The only thing that will check Donald Trump is Donald Trump, and he has no track record of ever checking himself.

Let me try to spell this out:

1 - The Constitution is a piece of paper. It has no physical ability to stop anyone from doing anything without an enforcement mechanism.
2 - The branch tasked with enforcing the Constitution is the problem.
3 - The branches of government tasked with checking the executive have either A) completely deferred to the executive (the legislative branch) or, B) have ruled that the executive branch has full immunity for (largely undefined) official acts (the judicial branch).
4 - Even if the legislative and/or judicial branch decides to attempt to check the executive branch, they can't because they don't have any actual coercive abilities (despite what you may think). You cannot coerce an executive with the power of the entire federal executive branch, including the military, plus national guards that can be federalized, with a sergeant-at-arms.

You've got to start realizing that the Constitution only works if the people in power want it to work. It's not magic. It's just words on paper.

We are already post-Constitutional. We're already here. Today.

Saying "the language doesn't allow that," to hijack your pony analogy, is more like telling your 6-month-old to stop crying because you have rules against crying. Quite frankly, your rules don't matter to the 6-month-old and that kid is gonna stop crying when he gets what he wants. It really doesn't matter what your rules say.

Last I looked the administration keeps showing up to court. Keeps filing papers. Keeps following court orders - except when they’re given wiggle room.

Why is that?

What is it that you’re advocating for?

 

[brandon]

Last I looked the administration keeps showing up to court. Keeps filing papers. Keeps following court orders - except when they’re given wiggle room.

Why is that?

As long as they can drag out the appearance of Constitutionality and operating within the system, and as long as the system is capable of giving them what they want, they will.

Russia has a Supreme Court. Russia has a Legislature.

China has a Supreme Court. China has a Legislature.

North Korea has a Supreme Court. North Korea has a Legislature.

If the courts and legislatures can be bent to the executive through their own processes, then you don't have to pull out the big guns.

But rest assured, if the courts or legislature decide to attempt to check the executive, they will just ignore it, and there will be no repercussions, because there's no one to provide those repercussions.

 

[superchuck500]

As long as they can drag out the appearance of Constitutionality and operating within the system, and as long as the system is capable of giving them what they want, they will.

Russia has a Supreme Court. Russia has a Legislature.

China has a Supreme Court. China has a Legislature.

North Korea has a Supreme Court. North Korea has a Legislature.

If the courts and legislatures can be bent to the executive through their own processes, then you don't have to pull out the big guns.

But rest assured, if the courts or legislature decide to attempt to check the executive, they will just ignore it, and there will be no repercussions, because there's no one to provide those repercussions.

Okay, I’ll hear you out - what is it that you’re advocating for? Lay it out for us.

 

[MT15]

Chuck - I read today that buried in that Project 2025 was the strategy they seem to be implementing. Which, paraphrasing, is this:

Give the appearance of adhering to the judicial rulings and the Constitution and laws until such time as they no longer have to do so. Exactly as Brandon said. They need the wiggle room until they can bring every institution capable of checking them to heel, once they have achieved that it will be far too late for any meaningful resistance.

They have already ignored several court rulings with no consequences-so far. For example, they were ordered to turn the planes around from the trip to the concentration camp in El Salvador, and they chose to ignore it. They were ordered not to send one of the student detainees to Louisiana, and they did it anyway. The judiciary is sort of trying to check them, but they are weak and unable to take meaningful action.

All we have right now is the hope that some sort of meaningful resistance shows up - whether it is Senators, or SCOTUS or a former president or CEOs - I don’t know. I’m losing hope that we can stop this. He’s doing everything Project 2025 wanted so far. And their end goal is to become an oligarchical theocracy instead of a representative democracy as I understand it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

That also assumes that everyone in the country and around the world lets that go unanswered. You are correct. It’s not happening.

They let the man who encouraged Jan 6th, was convicted of tax fraud, loan fraud, election fraud and sexual assault run for and become president again

That definitely happened

And people said at the time just as strongly that it wouldn’t

 

[TampaJoe]

They let the man who encouraged Jan 6th, was convicted of fraud, election fraud and sexual assault run for and become president again

That definitely happened

And people said at the time just as strongly that it wouldn’t

It’s against the US Constitution. It’s not going to happen. But you can worry yourself about it if you choose.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

You clearly aren’t familiar with Donald J Trump

Or maybe he is...

 

[Incumbent]

Chuck - I read today that buried in that Project 2025 was the strategy they seem to be implementing. Which, paraphrasing, is this:

Give the appearance of adhering to the judicial rulings and the Constitution and laws until such time as they no longer have to do so. Exactly as Brandon said. They need the wiggle room until they can bring every institution capable of checking them to heel, once they have achieved that it will be far too late for any meaningful resistance.

They have already ignored several court rulings with no consequences-so far. For example, they were ordered to turn the planes around from the trip to the concentration camp in El Salvador, and they chose to ignore it. They were ordered not to send one of the student detainees to Louisiana, and they did it anyway. The judiciary is sort of trying to check them, but they are weak and unable to take meaningful action.

All we have right now is the hope that some sort of meaningful resistance shows up - whether it is Senators, or SCOTUS or a former president or CEOs - I don’t know. I’m losing hope that we can stop this. He’s doing everything Project 2025 wanted so far. And their end goal is to become an oligarchical theocracy instead of a representative democracy as I understand it.

This is the big concern.

I understand people wanting to put faith in our framework and institutions because, despite our national failings throughout history, that's something we believed we could eventually rely on. Is that really still the case?

Brandon has previously posed the question about what happens if Trump decides to just stay in office; the idea of another term just being a more specific example of that. We might choose to think there's no way he can do that now, or the system will successfully block any attempt he makes, but he's rapidly dismantling and overtaking the system. Who, with any actual power, is going to try and hold him accountable? Hegseth? Bondi? Patel? Vance? Johnson?

 

[Lapaz]

This is the big concern.

I understand people wanting to put faith in our framework and institutions because, despite our national failings throughout history, that's something we believed we could eventually rely on. Is that really still the case?

Brandon has previously posed the question about what happens if Trump decides to just stay in office; the idea of another term just being a more specific example of that. We might choose to think there's no way he can do that now, or the system will successfully block any attempt he makes, but he's rapidly dismantling and overtaking the system. Who, with any actual power, is going to try and hold him accountable? Hegseth? Bondi? Patel? Vance? Johnson?

It'll be a tense transition of power, because I think the leadership Trump has put in place are willing to order violations of the constitution. The tension will come from the military and secret service, because many of them may follow the constitution and refuse orders. It is our only hope.

 

[Lapaz]

NPR put out an article today spelling out ways it could be done. I didn’t read the entire thing, but they mentioned going to SCOTUS to rule that he can only have 2 consecutive terms and since his terms weren’t consecutive he can run in 2028.

Also, he could run for VP and if his running mate wins, they could resign.

Also, he could be elected Speaker of the House and both POTUS and VP resign.

I quit reading at that point because it was too depressing.

I think Trump running as VP is unconstitutional based on the end of the 12th amendment, since he wouldn't be eligible based on the 22nd amendment.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

I think Booker explained the only way that it can happen constitutionally, which is being appointed as speaker of the House, and then resignations of both the president and VP. In the cult that exists, I think it is possible, because Trump can rig the election somehow, and then assure that the candidates are indebted to him somehow. The key is going to be can the Democrats regain control of the House and then take actions to prevent the elections from being rigged.

 

[Lapaz]

Okay, I’ll hear you out - what is it that you’re advocating for? Lay it out for us.

I don't think Brandon is advocating. I think he is raising the concern and potential.

 

[Nolaswede]

Chuck - I read today that buried in that Project 2025 was the strategy they seem to be implementing. Which, paraphrasing, is this:

Give the appearance of adhering to the judicial rulings and the Constitution and laws until such time as they no longer have to do so. Exactly as Brandon said. They need the wiggle room until they can bring every institution capable of checking them to heel, once they have achieved that it will be far too late for any meaningful resistance.

They have already ignored several court rulings with no consequences-so far. For example, they were ordered to turn the planes around from the trip to the concentration camp in El Salvador, and they chose to ignore it. They were ordered not to send one of the student detainees to Louisiana, and they did it anyway. The judiciary is sort of trying to check them, but they are weak and unable to take meaningful action.

All we have right now is the hope that some sort of meaningful resistance shows up - whether it is Senators, or SCOTUS or a former president or CEOs - I don’t know. I’m losing hope that we can stop this. He’s doing everything Project 2025 wanted so far. And their end goal is to become an oligarchical theocracy instead of a representative democracy as I understand it.

But, I thought he had never heard of Project 2025….