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.
Yeah, I agree. This was a bad idea. The text is quite clear that no person shall be elected to be President more than twice. Simply introducing it as a “clarification” will give the impression that clarification is necessary. It’s not.
Republicans can’t do anything to fix this (legally) other than to amend the Constitution. Let’s see what illegal shit they try, though.
deleted by creator
The States can and will. Recall that there were a few states that tried to take Trump off the ballot this time around, that case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that states couldn’t use that specific clause to keep Trump off the ballot. Furthermore, that decision was unanimous, although the Liberal judges released their own opinion saying that they disagreed with some aspects of the decision.
It will be a lot harder for even this court to weasel it’s way around the language in that amendment. And it will get there quickly. The minute Trump announces another candidacy every state that is not totally MAGA will immediately refuse to put him on any ballot due to his ineligibility.
deleted by creator
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
focusdo is rewrite the Constitution.deleted by creator
Either they ignore the Amendment or they don’t. Even if SCOTUS unanimously said it’s not possible Donald J Trump doesn’t take “No” for an answer. His entire take on being President is, “It’s not illegal if nobody stops you from doing it.”
Laws dont matter anymore because they wont be enforced. We’re flatly ignoring the leahy laws now and no one bats an eye because almost every congressman on both sides and the judiciary have been bought by AIPAC. They will continue to buy and own them all from here on out, so the president is never going to be impeached, and we cant sue the president-- thats a duty of congress. So its over. We are living in a banana republic. It was sold to the highest bidder and it’ll stay bought.
There’s a similar sort of tussle going on in Canada. In Canada abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom but given the shit going on in the US there have been discussions about passing a law to absolutely for sure double enshrine it. However the opinion from Supreme Court jurists among others is that passing a law guaranteeing it may weaken the protections because it’d move it from a universally recognized freedom to a law someone could reverse if the wrong party took power.
It’s a really interesting discussion up here because that was essentially the state of affairs in the US (though Roe was a weaker ruling than our understanding up here) until yall had an activist Court that said “Fuck it” and acted illegally. So the question is “is it more likely for us to get chucklefucks in the legislature or the court, and if we’re really clear about not passing a law because it’s inherently accepted as a human right can we prevent it.”
We do have a significant chucklefuck crowd in Canada (thanks American cultural export) so it’s a concern but abortion access is extremely popular up here so it hasn’t been turned into a wedge issue. (We do have stupid bullshit over trans rights, the environment, and indigenous sovereignty, though - in Canada all the scary stereotypes America has against black people and Mexicans are instead directed at Native Americans).
This isn’t about needing clarification though. Like you said, clarification is not necessary. This move is about being able to wave this amendment around in front of everyone, and publicly force Republicans to agree on its meaning, ahead of Trump ignoring it.
I don’t see this as being completely a bad move but I am not a legal expert. I also won’t call it a good move, but it will force the hand of the Republicans who wish to ignore this law into publicly stating as much. This would have been a lot more effective earlier though I think.