nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

Summary

Rep. Daniel Goldman plans to introduce a resolution clarifying that the Constitution’s two-term limit for presidents applies even if terms are non-consecutive, aiming to close any perceived loophole after Donald Trump joked about seeking a third term.

While unlikely to advance under Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, Goldman’s resolution underscores Democrats’ concerns over Trump’s repeated comments about serving beyond two terms, which some view as “anti-democratic and authoritarian.”

Goldman urges bipartisan support to uphold the 22nd Amendment, amid fears that some Republicans might not view Trump’s statements as mere jokes.

  • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
    72·
    15 hours ago

    The 14th amendment approach did have some legitimate issues with it. If it worked, then I am convinced Abbott would have invoked some bullshit “Biden is creating an invasion at the border” excuse to remove Biden from the ballot. That’s why the decision ended up unanimous.

    The 22nd amendment’s text is a whole lot clearer, and far less subject to interpretation. I can see a State saying “I don’t even need the Supreme Court to weigh in on this one”. And if it does come up with some tortured logic, I can see a State telling it to go to hell, because the one thing it can’t focus do is rewrite the Constitution.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      19 hours ago

      And if it does come up with some tortured logic, I can see a State telling it to go to hell, because the one thing it can’t focus rewrite the Constitution.

      And this is where your logic falls apart. This would have been a correct statement on or before November 4, 2024. It is no longer correct. We are in TrumpWorld now. The rules as we knew them no longer matter, and can and will either be rewritten or outright ignored.

      Trump doesn’t have to rewrite the Constitution. He just has to use the same logic with the 22nd amendment as they did with the 14th: It is simply too vague and not enforceable. If Trump says that, and Congress passes a bill saying that, and the Supreme Court says “Yeah, fuck the 22nd amendment.”, and a bunch of MAGA state governments say that, then guess what?

      I mean sure, some states could go their own way and not put him on the ballot. But (a), good luck getting people to consider that election legitimate, (b) They probably wouldn’t be enough to swing the election anyway, and © the MAGA congress could just as easily set those states aside entirely because reasons.

      Thinking that a man is going to play by the rules when he’s using the rulebook as toilet paper while being cheered on by voters is probably not going to go the way you think it will. Especially when that man has already seized enough power to rewrite the rulebook at will anyway.