2 hours ago, TheVat said:

12th Amendment blocks that maneuver, happily.

Wasn't aware of that amendment.
Thanks.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

12th Amendment blocks that maneuver, happily.

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

(and there aren't enough state ratification votes to repeal the relevant amendments - 3/4 of states must ratify any change in the Constitution)

Unfortunately, the 22nd Amendment does not say that Trump will be ineligible to the office of President after the completion of his second term, only that he can't be elected to the office of the President. Thus, the 12th Amendment doesn't seem to apply.

One thing that the article:

https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/

points out is that "if the 22nd Amendment’s purpose was to ensure that there was a 10 year maximum on service for anyone regardless of how they became President, it could have said so".

 

Edited April 3Apr 3 by KJW

44 minutes ago, KJW said:

Unfortunately, the 22nd Amendment does not say that Trump will be ineligible to the office of President after the completion of his second term, only that he can't be elected to the office of the President. Thus, the 12th Amendment doesn't seem to apply.

 

The Constitutional lawyer I had read (name EMATM) said the 12th applies, but I'm sure there are those who disagree.  AFAICT, the scholars argument was that unable to be elected is meant as ineligible, i.e. why bother making this whole new amendment to limit terms, get 3/4 ratification from the states, all to just install an easily dodged speed bump?  And I would guess even a conservative SCOTUS would see it that way, too.  The Congress and state legislatures that got behind 22 were reflecting a very popular public sentiment that term limits should be constitutionally mandated (it still polls at around 80% for term limits).  

But I would be genuinely interested in the counterargument, and what regions of the political spectrum it is emanating from.

Edited April 3Apr 3 by TheVat

55 minutes ago, TheVat said:

But I would be genuinely interested in the counterargument, and what regions of the political spectrum it is emanating from.

Even if the counterargument comes from the ultra-far-right, it may still be valid based on the precise wording of the Amendments. As I see it, whether or not unable to be elected means ineligible is something that neither you nor I can say with any confidence when it comes to how the courts will decide. It seems to me that unable to be elected does not mean ineligible, but I'm guessing the argument will come down to what the drafters of the Amendments intended (why they were worded the way they were, etc). Also, given that we are in a political environment in which Trump is now president in spite of what happened on January 6, 2021, I wouldn't hold out too much hope that Trump will be legally denied his third term.
 

Edited April 4Apr 4 by KJW

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

12th Amendment blocks that maneuver, happily.

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

(and there aren't enough state ratification votes to repeal the relevant amendments - 3/4 of states must ratify any change in the Constitution)

 

Was literally about to respond to @MigLabout this; what surprises me is that while I see news articles talking about this impossible hypothetical, none of them mention the 12th amendment in regards to this. It's pretty straightforward, the 22nd amendment makes Trump ineligible to run again as president, therefore he is the definition of constitutionally ineligible. The only time I've heard them use the 12th amendment to discuss Trump eligibility was when he was being impeached and they were talking about him potentially being made ineligible via Senate impeachment conviction. 

It's like people just forget it's a thing, why is anyone even entertaining the idea of him being VP? Why even write the story? It can't happen. What exactly would the SCOTUS argument in favour of that look like? There is mental gymnastics and then there is impossible. Same rules apply for him running for a third term, without a constitutional amendment, it's just not possible. Sorry, not sorry!

23 hours ago, iNow said:

Nobody’s talking about the citizens he’s disappearing, and how even ones they admit were sent to Venezuelan prisons in error are still there and being ignored. 

I think we have to start asking; have some people's Internet news bubbles, become completely non-porous to reality getting in? 

2 hours ago, KJW said:

I wouldn't hold out too much hope that Trump will be legally denied his third term.

Agreed, and even if the courts perhaps decided he wasn’t legally allowed a 3rd term they lack any enforcement mechanisms of their own and he’d just ignore them, have the judeges impeached, and likely sent to prison labor camps in Venezuela. 

1 hour ago, MSC said:

it's just not possible

This is a failure of imagination on your part

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is a failure of imagination on your part

Sorry, let me rephrase; there is no possible legal way or reasonable argument to be made as to why it would be legal, without completely ignoring the 12th and 22nd amendment. 

That said; there would be no federal government push to stop Trump from running as the VP, but it would only take a few state supreme courts to decide to keep Trump off the ballot, and election funding or no election funding, not on the ballot means you can't win. 

 

 

1 hour ago, MSC said:

It's pretty straightforward, the 22nd amendment makes Trump ineligible to run again as president, therefore he is the definition of constitutionally ineligible.

It's hardly "straightforward". Otherwise, there wouldn't be a legal debate on the issue. Actually, the 22nd and 12th Amendments taken together contain a peculiar circularity, rendering them unable to decide whether Trump can legally become Vice President after the conclusion of his second term. That is, if Trump can legally become Vice President, he can legally become President by becoming Vice President, and therefore he can legally become Vice President; whereas if Trump can't legally become Vice President, he can't legally become President by becoming Vice President, and therefore he can't legally become Vice President.

 

2 hours ago, KJW said:

Also, given that we are in a political environment in which Trump is now president in spite of what happened on January 6, 2021, I wouldn't hold out too much hope that Trump will be legally denied his third term.

I mean stranger things have happened, but unless Republicans gain massive ground in the midterms in the Senate or flip some Democrats themselves, I just don't see how. Not unless the Republicans goad Democrats into allowing third terms if it meant Obama could run again. Would he even want to? I kind of feel like if the Obama's as a couple thought they could handle that again, Michelle would have ran by now. 

One thing I'm pretty sure of though, if he does get a third term, somehow, that would start a lot of civil unrest or a full on civil war. 

1 minute ago, KJW said:

It's hardly "straightforward". Otherwise, there wouldn't be a legal debate on the issue. Actually, the 22nd and 12th Amendments taken together contain a peculiar circularity, rendering them unable to decide whether Trump can legally become Vice President after the conclusion of his second term. That is, if Trump can legally become Vice President, he can legally become President by becoming Vice President, and therefore he can legally become Vice President; whereas if Trump can't legally become Vice President, he can't legally become President by becoming Vice President, and therefore he can't legally become Vice President.

 

Where is the credible legal debate on the issue? 

5 hours ago, MSC said:

Where is the credible legal debate on the issue? 

I had already posted this link to an article from the Cornerstone Law Firm:

https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/

I also found this article from the University of Minnesota Law School:

Peabody, Bruce G. and Gant, Scott E., "The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment" (1999). Minnesota Law Review. 909.

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1908&context=mlr

See page 55 / 73 of the PDF (page 618 of the text).
 

 

7 hours ago, MSC said:

Sorry, let me rephrase; there is no possible legal way or reasonable argument to be made as to why it would be legal, without completely ignoring the 12th and 22nd amendment. 

It's more a matter of interpretations, of a language that becomes ever more ambiguous with age.

18 hours ago, toucana said:

 

I really wouldn't bother. Most ppl who have read your comments in this thread will probably concur with a piece of advice originally attributed to Mark Twain:

 

Thank you, lesson learned... 🙄

3 hours ago, KJW said:

I had already posted this link to an article from the Cornerstone Law Firm:

https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/

I also found this article from the University of Minnesota Law School:

Peabody, Bruce G. and Gant, Scott E., "The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment" (1999). Minnesota Law Review. 909.

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1908&context=mlr

See page 55 / 73 of the PDF (page 618 of the text).
 

 

Thanks for sharing, will read and respond after work! Sorry I didn't see your earlier share too, it's been a busy week. 

9 hours ago, MSC said:

Sorry, let me rephrase; there is no possible legal way or reasonable argument to be made as to why it would be legal, without completely ignoring the 12th and 22nd amendment. 

I might take comfort in this, if we hadn't already seen two months of illegal and unconstitutional actions by this administration, none of them 'checked' by Congress or the Senate.
Lots of time for even worse in the next 46 ( or more ! ) months.

21 hours ago, KJW said:

I had already posted this link to an article from the Cornerstone Law Firm:

https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/

I also found this article from the University of Minnesota Law School:

Peabody, Bruce G. and Gant, Scott E., "The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment" (1999). Minnesota Law Review. 909.

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1908&context=mlr

See page 55 / 73 of the PDF (page 618 of the text).
 

 

Quote

At the time the Twelfth Amendment was written there was, of course, no Twenty-Second Amendment; therefore, the Twelfth Amendment could not have originally meant to preclude someone from being Vice President who had been elected President twice. Rather, the Twelfth Amendment's Reference to "eligibility" likely pointed only to the "eligibility" provision of Article II, Section 1, clause 4, which states that

Excerpt from the second link you shared, see this interpretation is disturbing to me because it negates the idea of a living document and flies in the face of article V of the original Constitution establishing amendment power, where it makes clear the only limits it place on said amendment power was a temporary prohibition on changes to clauses 1 and four of section 9 of article I. 

The mistake I often see people make in the conceptualisation of the US Constitution, is behaving like the amendments are in some way separate from the original document because they don't see them together, amendments listed separately, when in reality reading a living document requires placing amendments where they belong in relation to the original articles, sections and clauses to make for more fluid reading, everything in place. 

Quote

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States - US Constitution Article II S1 C4

As an example of what I was saying; amendments in relation to the presidency and vice presidency, belong in Article II. 

I mean don't get me wrong, it's all still theoretically debatable, however I've picked a side and don't see any pragmatic reason to do the fascists work for them by imagining up arguments in favour of helping a convict find a legal loophole to keep escaping justice while also being able to keep holding a knife to the throat of the world. 

I mean definitionally "ineligible" means incapable of involvement or position by way of rule, regulation or law. The spirit of the 22nd amendment cannot be clearer, there is a clear intent to curb how long any one person may remain in office. 

Quote

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. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

The intent behind stating that no person who has held or acted as president for more than two years of a term may be elected more than once, is addressing the role of vice presidency or someone else in the line of succession, albeit indirectly but who else is going to step into the presidency if the current president becomes unable? What other positions could it be talking about other than VPs, Speakers and Designated survivors? 

 

6 hours ago, MSC said:

Excerpt from the second link you shared, see this interpretation is disturbing to me because it negates the idea of a living document and flies in the face of article V of the original Constitution establishing amendment power, where it makes clear the only limits it place on said amendment power was a temporary prohibition on changes to clauses 1 and four of section 9 of article I. 

The mistake I often see people make in the conceptualisation of the US Constitution, is behaving like the amendments are in some way separate from the original document because they don't see them together, amendments listed separately, when in reality reading a living document requires placing amendments where they belong in relation to the original articles, sections and clauses to make for more fluid reading, everything in place. 

The mistake you're making is assuming it's a living document; it's become biblical and dogmatic, in the American culture.

As such it's subject to deliberate political mis-interpretation's , over many rounds of political tumult, and it doesn't evolve with the language of the current culture; given enough time, the founding father's could become God's... 

10 hours ago, MSC said:

Quote

At the time the Twelfth Amendment was written there was, of course, no Twenty-Second Amendment; therefore, the Twelfth Amendment could not have originally meant to preclude someone from being Vice President who had been elected President twice. Rather, the Twelfth Amendment's Reference to "eligibility" likely pointed only to the "eligibility" provision of Article II, Section 1, clause 4, which states that

Excerpt from the second link you shared, see this interpretation is disturbing to me because it negates the idea of a living document and flies in the face of article V of the original Constitution establishing amendment power, where it makes clear the only limits it place on said amendment power was a temporary prohibition on changes to clauses 1 and four of section 9 of article I.

This was just one consideration. Further down the article, the authors do consider the meaning of "eligibility" under the Twelfth Amendment after the adoption of the Twenty-Second Amendment. Their view seems to be that because the Twenty-Second Amendment doesn't prohibit a twice-elected president from becoming president by means other than by re-election, it cannot be said that the Twelfth Amendment prohibits a twice-elected President from serving as Vice President.

 

 

10 hours ago, MSC said:

I mean don't get me wrong, it's all still theoretically debatable

Then we are in agreement.

 

 

10 hours ago, MSC said:

I've picked a side and don't see any pragmatic reason to do the fascists work for them by imagining up arguments in favour of helping a convict find a legal loophole to keep escaping justice while also being able to keep holding a knife to the throat of the world.

I don't see this as a matter of choosing sides. I see this as a possibility that is available to Trump at the end of his second term. I chose this side of the debate only as a counterbalance to the commonly stated view that Trump is ineligible for a third term as President. Bear in mind that the article was written in 1999 during the Bill Clinton presidency, so the idea that a twice-elected President can serve a third term as President is hardly new. So why didn't Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama try for a third term as President? It seems rather obvious to me... they weren't megalomaniacs. And let's face it, although it might be legal for a twice-elected President to serve a third term as President by becoming Vice President, it's hardly a respectable way of becoming President. Instead, it seems rather sleazy. But then, respectability is not really a feature of the Trump presidency. One further point to consider: Is anyone who has just been elected President really going to voluntarily give up that position to someone who has already served two terms as President and is trying to use a loophole to serve a third term?

 

 

On 4/4/2025 at 6:49 AM, MigL said:

I might take comfort in this, if we hadn't already seen two months of illegal and unconstitutional actions by this administration, none of them 'checked' by Congress or the Senate.
Lots of time for even worse in the next 46 ( or more ! ) months.

It is astonishing to me that folks are talking about a constitutional crisis, yet the broader reaction to this is in the population is muted, to put it mildly. Approval rating still sit at around 40%, for example.

1 hour ago, KJW said:

Is anyone who has just been elected President really going to voluntarily give up that position to someone who has already served two terms as President and is trying to use a loophole to serve a third term?

Of course, and refusal to accept that possibility is another example of a failure of imagination. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medvedev–Putin_tandemocracy

58 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course, and refusal to accept that possibility is another example of a failure of imagination. 

It is possible, given TPs ability to intimidate people, mobster style.  Our best protection might be expressed by this equation:

(Present Year - 1946)  X (kg annual average cheeseburger intake x BMI) X (annual average miles traversed in golf cart/miles walked) = Imminent Death Rating.

So, let's say it is late 2028, so we start with 82, multiply by (260 kg cheeseburgers X BMI of 30) so that's  7800, and then multiply by 400 golf cart miles / 1 mile walked...which gives us an IDR of...

(82 * 7800 * 400) = 255,840,000 for the IDR 

Basically anything over 100,000,000  is high risk.  Over 200,000,000 is "how are you even still here?"  

(DISCLAIMER:  Equation is not based on real medical research, and is offered only for purposes of whimsy)

 

 

4 hours ago, KJW said:

don't see this as a matter of choosing sides. I see this as a possibility that is available to Trump at the end of his second term. I chose this side of the debate only as a counterbalance to the commonly stated view that Trump is ineligible for a third term as President.

You don't see it as a matter of choosing sides, yet a few sentences later you explicitly state "I chose this side" and your reasoning for why kind of strikes as bordering on arguing in bad faith. What do you really actually think? Nobody asked anybody to be devils advocate or to balance out anything in this discussion, so is that all you're doing or do you really personally believe he is eligible for a third term as president? 

My other question; why do you believe that viewing Trump as ineligible is the common view? Who's common view specifically? 

Side bar; don't take me trying to call you out on a few things as a sign that you don't have my respect, you do and I am finding this discussion interesting and I appreciate you taking the time to respond thoughtfully, and the accusation of bad faith is specifically that you may be unaware that it comes across as such, not that you're maliciously trying to mislead because I know you're not. Just bringing it to your awareness that your stated reason for picking that side comes across as a bad faith argument because it infers that you're not sharing what you actually feel about it. 

 

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

It is possible, given TPs ability to intimidate people, mobster style.  Our best protection might be expressed by this equation:

(Present Year - 1946)  X (kg annual average cheeseburger intake x BMI) X (annual average miles traversed in golf cart/miles walked) = Imminent Death Rating.

So, let's say it is late 2028, so we start with 82, multiply by (260 kg cheeseburgers X BMI of 30) so that's  7800, and then multiply by 400 golf cart miles / 1 mile walked...which gives us an IDR of...

(82 * 7800 * 400) = 255,840,000 for the IDR 

Basically anything over 100,000,000  is high risk.  Over 200,000,000 is "how are you even still here?"  

(DISCLAIMER:  Equation is not based on real medical research, and is offered only for purposes of whimsy)

 

 

You missed pie! How can you calculate anything to do with beef burgers without pie?!

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Of course, and refusal to accept that possibility is another example of a failure of imagination. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medvedev–Putin_tandemocracy

Explicitly stating the possibility in a discussion isn't the same as not being able to imagine it. Rather I can imagine it, and so fight it, because the idea of him having a third term, nay another day of oxygen, is horrible. 

9 hours ago, MSC said:

You don't see it as a matter of choosing sides, yet a few sentences later you explicitly state "I chose this side" and your reasoning for why kind of strikes as bordering on arguing in bad faith. What do you really actually think? Nobody asked anybody to be devils advocate or to balance out anything in this discussion, so is that all you're doing or do you really personally believe he is eligible for a third term as president?

As I see it, there are two distinct ways of taking sides. You appear to be taking sides in one way, I am taking sides in the other way. One way of taking sides is with regards to whether or not you support Trump as President, whether or not you would vote for him at an election, whether or not you agree with his policies, etc. This is the way of taking sides that I assume you are referring to. I believe I have made myself clear on how I view Trump. However, I should point out that as an Australian, I am more distant from what is happening than are many other people. The side I am taking is with regards to what the US Constitution says about whether or not Trump can legally serve a third term as President. I believe he can. I am not in any way suggesting that is a good thing, only that it does seem to be legal. But I am only taking my cue from what I have read. I am not a legal expert, certainly not in regard to US law. Indeed, it is not so much that I believe Trump can legally serve a third term as President, but rather that what I have read seems to indicate that Trump can legally serve a third term as President.
 

 

9 hours ago, MSC said:

My other question; why do you believe that viewing Trump as ineligible is the common view? Who's common view specifically?

Why wouldn't it be the common view? It seems to be generally accepted that US Presidents serve two terms and no more. Anyone who knows anything about US politics (not just Americans) would know about the two-term limit.
 

 

12 hours ago, MSC said:

You don't see it as a matter of choosing sides, yet a few sentences later you explicitly state "I chose this side" and your reasoning for why kind of strikes as bordering on arguing in bad faith. What do you really actually think? Nobody asked anybody to be devils advocate or to balance out anything in this discussion, so is that all you're doing or do you really personally believe he is eligible for a third term as president? 

My other question; why do you believe that viewing Trump as ineligible is the common view? Who's common view specifically? 

Side bar; don't take me trying to call you out on a few things as a sign that you don't have my respect, you do and I am finding this discussion interesting and I appreciate you taking the time to respond thoughtfully, and the accusation of bad faith is specifically that you may be unaware that it comes across as such, not that you're maliciously trying to mislead because I know you're not. Just bringing it to your awareness that your stated reason for picking that side comes across as a bad faith argument because it infers that you're not sharing what you actually feel about it. 

 

You missed pie! How can you calculate anything to do with beef burgers without pie?!

Explicitly stating the possibility in a discussion isn't the same as not being able to imagine it. Rather I can imagine it, and so fight it, because the idea of him having a third term, nay another day of oxygen, is horrible. 

There in lies the problem, he's made you fear the future and every coin has two side's:

the fear side is you lose the coin...

the other side is you fail to spend it...

What's horrible is, hoping he dies bc you can't figure out why he's wrong... 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

What's horrible is, hoping he dies bc you can't figure out why he's wrong.

I have no idea what you mean by this? I hope 47 dies because I can't figure out why he's wrong? I have no clue what that means. 

And I stand by hoping that he dies. Not gonna make me feel bad for that one dim. Might as well call me horrible or evil for hoping Hitler is in hell?

1 minute ago, MSC said:

I have no idea what you mean by this? I hope 47 dies because I can't figure out why he's wrong? I have no clue what that means. 

And I stand by hoping that he dies. Not gonna make me feel bad for that one dim. Might as well call me horrible or evil for hoping Hitler is in hell?

Not my problem (big clue), but Hitler did lead to many year's of 'peace'; the other side of that coin is Hitler should be in heaven... 😉

Quote

The risk Socrates himself faces is obvious but, as he explains it, the danger he faces is far less grave than the one the jurors may inflict upon themselves: Rest assured that if you kill me – since I am the person I say I am – you wouldn't harm me more than you harm yourselves.

 

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not my problem (big clue), but Hitler did lead to many year's of 'peace'; the other side of that coin is Hitler should be in heaven... 😉

 

Dim this is one of those times where you're gonna have to make your point directly and stop beating around the bush. You're not that good at developing sensical puzzles and you're running the risk of being completely misconstrued.