this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
416 points (99.1% liked)

politics

20364 readers
3306 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Despite the 22nd Amendment barring a third term (“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”), Trump continues to suggest he could run again, raising the idea at a Black History Month event and with Republican governors.

Legal experts say the Constitution is clear that he cannot run, though some supporters, including Rep. Andy Ogles and Steve Bannon, are pushing for a constitutional amendment or a 2028 campaign.

Meanwhile, Trump has expanded executive authority in his second term, drawing criticism for undermining congressional checks.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 30 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

He’s gonna run anyways. Mark my words. He can’t leave office or he’s fucked. The constitution is nothing more than toilet paper at this point, if no one is going to stand up for it.

[–] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 24 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Ideally, in the near future he will undergo some sort of transformation that would render a third term a physical impossibility rather than a legal one.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

I call that "God's Ultimate Recall Vote"

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Decent chance he'll croak before the end of his term. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 2 points 11 hours ago

Then we get Captain Shortpants

[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

Wait until he learns about FDR and his third and fourth terms. That's what he'll use as his reasoning.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Legal experts say the Constitution is clear that he cannot run, though some supporters, including Rep. Andy Ogles and Steve Bannon, are pushing for a constitutional amendment or a 2028 campaign.

It's a non-starter.

You need at minimum three-quarters of states for an amendment, and that's if you take the constitutional convention route. Even if you got every Republican-majority state onboard, which I very much doubt -- I think that there are a very considerable number of Republican politicians who are glad that Trump has managed to pull in a majority and are happy to maybe use some of his tactics but are also more than happy to see him ride off into the sunset and let them run things -- that's still not going to be enough.

Also, I don't know if ratification is just the upper house (almost all states have a bicameral legislature) or both or if it varies by state, but if it's both, that's an even higher bar.

kagis

Sounds like it's both.

https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-us-constitution

Step 3. Ratification by three-fourths of the states. Ratification of the amendment language adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature cannot change the language. If it does, its ratification is invalid. A governor’s signature on the ratification bill or resolution is not necessary.

So you have to get a majority of legislators in both legislative houses in a three-quarters supermajority of states. That's a pretty high bar.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 9 points 14 hours ago

How many other things is he not allowed to do, but is doing anyway with permission (either tacit or direct) from congress and the courts? You think this will stop him?

Words on a piece of paper only have power if people uphold them. No one's upholding them.

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

What's stopping him making an executive order claiming he can do it, use that as an excuse to run a clearly illegal campaign, use his control of the FEC to win and dare anyone to do smth about it?

[–] a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Executive orders can't direclty contradict existing laws. They are utilized in "legal gray areas". If it were that simple, Trump would simply pass an executive order that it's legal for him to assassinate all members of any opposing political party and wipe every non-republican off the face of the earth, literally.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

All well and good, but he now has the military under his thumb and firmly planted up his ass. There’s no one left that has the authority to tell him he can’t.

[–] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 17 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It says, elected more than twice. Who says there's going to be an election?

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

That's what I was thinking. Does anyone remember leading up to him taking over in '17 they were talking about how Obama was going to institute martial law and just stay in the Whitehouse without being elected?

They haven't tried that one yet but they sure floated that someone else was going to do it.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 14 hours ago

He did promise that it will be the last election if he wins this one

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 22 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

There is absolutely nothing barring Trump from running for a third term.

The Supreme Court literally just hand-waved away another Constitutional amendment that should have barred Trump from running for a 2nd term, let alone a third. And they basically did it on the legal precedent of "because fuck you, that's why." All 3 branches of government have completely ignored the blatant constitutional violations he's committed since taking office. There's absolutely nothing stopping the Supreme Court from just striking down another constitutional amendment because hey why not and letting the guy run as often as he wants.

And remember, we even had one state legislator asking why we even have elections instead of just handing the votes to Trump......

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

There was a little kernel of sanity behind that ruling, though. Absent a clear conviction for a crime that smells like insurrection, who gets to decide what insurrection means? I remember that there was a lot of talk of the "insurrection at the border" at the same time the ruling was being considered, as well as describing migrants as "military-age men". I am positive that if the SC let Colorado take Trump off the ballot, Texas would have taken Biden off based on some bullshit theory that he was instigating a foreign invasion of migrants.

The language behind a third Presidential term is much, much clearer. The plain text of the amendment bars it, and if Trump decides to run again, several states will declare him ineligible on the spot. That will go to the SC, too. We'll see what happens then.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

There was a little kernel of sanity behind that ruling, though. Absent a clear conviction for a crime that smells like insurrection,

The House of Representatives, by a majority vote, found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and impeached him for this after January 6th. The Senate failed to vote to remove him from office, but this does not change the fact that he was found to have engaged in insurrection by the House of Representatives.

who gets to decide what insurrection means?

The House of Representatives already did.

Texas would have taken Biden off based on some bullshit theory that he was instigating a foreign invasion of migrants.

And when either the House of Representatives votes to impeach him for it, then he can be removed from the ballot as well. They tried, and failed. Repeatedly.

And if the courts just randomly decide that Biden's actions constituted an insurrection, we have much bigger problems to deal with, as the courts at that point can just declare anything they want as an insurrection, including political dissent.

The language behind a third Presidential term is much, much clearer. The plain text of the amendment bars it

Going based on the "kernel of sanity" thing, the argument is that it was meant to bar more than two consecutive terms, and was not meant to bar non-consecutive terms. The argument is that those who wrote the amendment knew the importance of being specific, and if they wanted to bar non-consecutive terms, they'd have specifically said as much.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UncleArthur@lemmy.world 22 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

I'm a Brit so what do I know? But I can see him taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook and running as VP to a family member running for President, possibly Eric. Then he'll still be in control.

[–] match@pawb.social 26 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

the constitution also directly bars that, but, it bars a lot of what Trump's already done in the last month

[–] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

The bad news is that we've (the sane, the empathetic, the introspective, the curious) already lost what was America. Trump's reelection is more like the rimshot following the actual punchline. So that battle is lost. It's painful but we can't dwell on it like a dog licking a hot spot. The good news is a new battle is brewing. I have no doubt that the current state of the government is unsustainable, wether by design or through incompetence. It's a near certainty that major calamity is on the horizon. Illness, war, terrorism, climate, social upheaval, something catastrophic will happen. It is going to happen and it will demand leadership and governance to overcome, and the fourth reich will not be capable of rising to the occasion. They will botch it, and the nation will be shattered. Historic levels of national reorganization will need to occur. Implied rules will need to be made explicit. This is where the next fight really is. They got to play offense for as long as democrats were a boogie man. Well, they hold all the cards now, so they will be soley to blame for the trainwreck. They will try to weasel out of it, but we can't let them. We need to keep them cornered, and we need to be ready to snatch back the tiller when the rough seas knock that fat bastard down onto the fucking deck. Then we need to bust out the plank and throw a going away party for his whole rogues gallery. Then we need to find shore again and fix our damaged ship.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee 12 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The 22nd amendment, the one that bars him from running for a third presidential term, also bars him from running as a future VP. Legally he could be speaker of the house, or another high ranking unelected official, but he's not inclined to follow laws anyway. Before Musk I would have said he wouldn't want to be 2nd-in-power, so I would have thought having one of his sons hold a higher office than him wouldn't happen. Everything is upside down now, so who knows what will happen

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 18 hours ago

He's not in control. He plays golf, tweets angrily, eats hamberders, watches tv, and yells at crowds and probably clouds.

The billionaires behind him are in charge.

https://www.vcinfodocs.com/venture-capital-and-trump

https://www.vcinfodocs.com/venture-capital-extremism

https://www.vcinfodocs.com/day-one-of-venture-capital-takeover

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

He really is sort of pathetic.

It's weird and oddly discouraging. It seems like the individual most responsible for the oncoming collapse of the United States should be some sort of supervillain, but he's really just a desperately insecure and over-compensating wad of hair, bronzer and congealed fat with the emotional maturity of a spoiled three-year-old.

And meanwhile, his wannabe Rasputin sidekick is a desperately insecure and over-compensating middle-aged chuunibyou who's still trying, and pathetically failing, to be the edgiest 13-year-old, and to not think about the fact that everyone who knows him thinks he's an asshole.

As if it's not already bad enough to watch as the US is systematically destroyed, we have to watch as it's systematically destroyed by people who are so pathetic and creepy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] robbinhood@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago

I'd be shocked if he's actually in good enough physical health to run again.

Sadly, I think Vance and his ilk might actually be a graver threat and Trump leaving the picture affords them an opportunity to rise up. The corporate cyberpunk dystopias they're dreaming of are terrifying.

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 8 points 18 hours ago

Statistically he would have died of natural causes or heart disease or something by then, right? He’s old as fuck and eats like shit.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

They might stir up a war for a third term.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 8 points 18 hours ago

operative krasnov wants a war so he can start up his national police and declare martial law. and he'll do it all just for the bump in the fucking polls for being a 'war president'.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 18 hours ago

"Might?" He's only been saber rattling with allies since day one.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›