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.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Barred? By whom? Really, when will the states wake up and figure out there is no “adult” in the wings that will enforce norms.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It is unlikely that the constitution will be amended. Democrats still (and will always) hold roughly 50% of seats in the Congress. So any proposal to amendment will not pass. However, there is a possibility of coup if Trump does not want to step down.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      They just illegally fired, and replaced the joint chiefs. What makes you think they aren’t going to arrest and replace all the democratic representatives and senators?

      We’re already past The Reichstag Fire

      He will be trying to make The Fediverse illegal in the US within the next 6 months.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Camels, much like dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals, are constantly pushing their boundaries. The phrase “a camel’s nose under the tent” is indicative of a camel that is attempting to find a way inside the tent so that they may eat the, most likely, food that has captured their attention with its scent.

          This would be applicable to the Drumpf administration because they are, much like the camel, using a method of “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks,” as well as a method of overwhelming the media with birdshot. Namely, if you’re creating 50 stories a day, and doing 50 things a day, then the media and the government can’t keep up.

          Again similar to our camel that has enough strength to tip the tent over, and create a royal mess, in its attempt to get in.

          Edit: First time I have heard the phrase as well,.but that is the meaning I would take from context.

          • Wetstew@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 hour ago

            I looked it up when I saw it, it seems like it comes from a fable with a similar moral to “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie”

            A camel sticks his nose under the edge of a tent for warmth, it’s owner (or a stranger w/e) allows it to out of kindness. Then the camel slowly worms it’s entire body in the tent and refuses to budge.

            It’s a slippery slope parable.

            In a sane society Trump should be in prison.

  • DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    On November 2028, he’ll be older than Joe Biden is now.

    But yeah, I can see him enter the 2028 GOP primaries, win the nomination, maybe beat Harris again, and serve as acting President while SCOTUS allows it.

    • Rutty@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      you think they’ll repeal the 22nd amendment and we’d see Harris? Please it’d be Obama v Trump

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Of course he’ll run and of course he’ll win and og course he’ll just ignore the laws about it and of course nobody is going to stop him

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • Wren@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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.

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.

  • Pondis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    163
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    To be fair he wasn’t supposed to run for a second term as a convicted felon, but he managed that.

    I’d like to say I’d be surprised if he could win another election as his popularity plummets, but the US voters have proven themselves to be stupid and/or lazy.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      96
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Being a convicted felon does not disqualify you from running for president, or from being elected to the office.

      Fomenting insurrection does, but that got waved away “because reasons”.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Nah, Colorado was handling it appropriately, then SCOTUS stepped in and told a state that they’re not allowed to administer elections in their state.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Because Biden appointed a bitch instead of someone who would actually do their goddamn job.

      • RejZoR@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 hours ago

        As convicted felon you can’t run for position of burger flipper at McDonalds, but you can become a president…

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I wouldn’t be surprised. He promised an end of elections and voting. This is what his voters wanted.

      • Placebonickname@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Take the good with the bad, if we have to re-do the voting system I say we move towards a more popular-voting system and get rid of the electoral collage, it’s time to shake up the gerrymandering of districts in favor of GOP Senators/Congress.

        Time for an overhaul!

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I think he’s aiming more to become an emperor. That said, I like the positive outlook! If he fucking ruins everything, there’s always room for the Americans to build something better in the mess he leaves.

          • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. The abject destruction of all aspects of law and government being carried out by Trump/Musk right now is, objectively, a bad thing that’s going to hurt a lot of people very badly. But once their system inevitably completely collapses, I think a lot of Americans are going to be open to new ideas of governance.

            Previously, we could all see problems in our systems but the path to actually getting them solved involved generations of focused political maneuvering to actually stand a chance of putting them in place. Take federal adoption of ranked choice voting as an example. Many people would say they were in favor of that but we all knew it had a snowball’s chance in hell of ever actually happening because of how our system of governance was set up. I fully expected we’d just coast along with FPTP voting until we’re all dead from climate catastrophe.

            But now, we’re actually looking at a potential full scale, whole hog destruction of the foundations of American government. Whoever inherits it afterward - and someone will, this reign won’t last forever, it’s incapable of sustaining itself even if we all just left them alone - has the potential for nearly a ground-up rewrite of some fundamental assumptions of American government. We’re talking about changing the baseline voting systems, changing eligibility for office for many roles, even fundamentally changing the way our representation is appointed (such as by population size instead of by land, for instance - one rep for every, say, 500,000 citizens, not two reps per state regardless of population) and so on.

            Rising from our own ashes may just end up being one of the best things to ever happen to America, in a historical context. Inevitably, no matter how this farce ends up resolving, we will have an opportunity for this afterward. Trump, in his bumbling fury, has swept away decades worth of red tape and inertia that we otherwise would have had to struggle through to make this happen, and in addition has galvanized a lot of latent anger with the system within the citizens. We will have a real chance to turn that into something constructive after all this finishes in whatever way it does.

            That’s my light at the end of the tunnel for all this, and in a weird way, I guess I have Trump to thank for this. His signature style of completely ignoring norms and regulations means that he can blast through a ton of bullshit while being completely immune to the feedback, and we can just build it all up again from scratch later in a term or two instead of taking six decades to effect gradual change.

            Previously I would have called this accelerationism and maybe condemned it, but we’re in the shit now, so may as well get it over with I guess. He’s already throwing all his toys out of the crib no matter what I say about it so I’m no longer ashamed about cheering for it. America has had a deep sickness in its government for a very long time and maybe now we can excise it. We’re losing a lot of healthy tissue alongside it, and that’s bad, but it’s not likely to kill us altogether. We’ll grow back stronger.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 hours ago

      That, and we have that stupid Electoral College. Oh, and lots and lots of fuckery from the Republican apparatchiks when it comes to running our elections.

      • shani66@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Being an insurrectionist is a guilty until proven innocent thing as far as the constitution goes iirc. At least in regards to holding office.

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      I hate to ‘akshualllyyy’, but actually there’s nothing in US law or the constitution that precludes a convicted felon from running for or holding office.

      There was a lot of legal talk leading up to the last election about that, along with plenty of surprise that was the case. It turns out it was another of those gentlemen’s agreements that was never codified because up until very recently, most people just assumed voters were smart enough not to elect someone like that, so codifying it wasn’t worth anyone’s time.

      If we ever wrest control back from these ghouls, there are a shit-ton of things that need codifying.

      e: a few words

  • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Who’s gonna stop him from running for or taking office for a third time? The Democrats? Are they gonna write a strongly worded letter? The Supreme Court? Do they have anyone with guns who will listen to them?

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      He’ll be SLaMmeD in that strongly worded letter, they’ll pat themselves on the back for a job well done, then run another candidate without a primary.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.

  • Zexks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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.

  • burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    this last election nearly killed him both in the tired old man running around the world way and also the long range ballistic way. i would love to see him try to do another campaign in 4 years when he is already barely able to speak complete sentences right now

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Unfortunately, most people don’t interpret the impeachment the way you do. They view the fact that he didn’t get thrown out of office as more of an acquittal, really. Although impeachment is a political process and not a judicial one, the impeachment itself in the House is more akin to an indictment while the trial in the Senate is meant to mirror a jury trial.