• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 hours ago

      They should, eya. Just like they should have kept him off in 2024, since he was already ineligible as an insurrectionist.

      but only a handful of states actually tried. funny how that worked.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

    Those are the exact words of the 22nd amendment. It’s explicit. There’s no ambiguity or room for other interpretations. Trump was elected twice, he’s hit his limit, that’s it.

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

      Yes, and none of that prohibits him from running for office again. The only prohibition is that he cannot be elected a third time. But here’s the thing: we don’t actually vote for President; we vote for who our Electors elect as President, and they are Constitutionally prohibited from electing Trump to a third term. If Trump runs and “wins”, the Electors cannot elect him. He can win 0 Electoral votes. Doesn’t matter what their States’ laws require because the Constitution is the highest law in the land… until SCOTUS rules the 22nd Amendment violates the 10th Amendment. 🤷🏻‍♂️

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

      No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

      This is why is fun to own a whole ass supreme court:

      No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

      Words are fun for this guy

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It does specify that he has to be a person. Perhaps they’re going to argue he isn’t?

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 hours ago

          In a wild turn of events, he’s gonna change his name to Deborah and run as our first trans President, claiming the transition resulted in him being a different person.

    • GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It doesn’t matter what it says when neither courts nor law enforcement will enforce it. Looks like we’re running out of democracy boxes.

    • neidu4@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Well, he can run again. It’s just moot, as he can’t be elected. If he were to get the most electoral votes, I gu3ss the runner up is elected?

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      There’s wiggle room, he’s claiming a right to campaign. To run… He’s not saying anything about being elected.

      He doesn’t actually do the electing. That’s up to public, and the officials who are in charge of elections (who he’ll try to stack with loyalists). He can’t say what they’ll do.

      He runs, and if others elect him… Well… That’s the wiggle room.

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

        That’s not wiggle room, it’s violating the Constitution. Not saying it can’t happen, but it’s not like that’s a logic loophole, it’s just not caring about acting illegally.

    • boatswain@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      So it sounds like there’s no prohibition against running, just against winning? Sounds like an easy win for the Dems.

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

        It seems pointless to run in an election you are constitutionally barred from winning. But, Trump has proven time and time again he will do pointless things. If he tried running again and somehow he won, however, the constitution is clear: it’s a no go. He can’t get elected for a third time. That said, I don’t think that’s necessarily the point. I think the point is to create chaos and crisis. Hopefully he’s not around to run in 2028 so it becomes a moot.

    • PineRune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Who’s going to do the first step though? The police? The police that are bought and paid for by the people that should be arrested? The police that are actively murdering people in the streets instead of defending them?

      I keep seeing this “arrest them” and “put them in jail for life” sentiment but nobody has a valid argument of how to do that in our current system without getting disappeared.

  • ClownStatue@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    He absolutely has the right to run. He certainly does not have the right to be elected. The 22nd amendment limits him to being elected twice. By all means, he should run. If anything, it will just ensure whoever the GOP nominates won’t win with The Idiot siphoning off the fascist voters.

    However, by his own bullshit math (that he won the 2020 election), he shouldn’t be president now. The amendment specifically talks about being elected to the office more than twice. The only thing it says about serving in the office applies when someone else was elected the first time, and even then sets a limit on how many times that second person can be elected.

    • plateee@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      “But what if it means two in a row!?!?!!?”

      That’s a literal claim from some Republicans.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        10 hours ago

        No no it has to be the first term, interrupted, then second, then third. The reason? Because they need to exclude Obama from running again.

      • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 hours ago

        And why wouldn’t it be?

        To be a Republican is to be a grifter/conman/shitstain. Cheating is always on the table.

        I know it’s hard to plan for all eventualities, but I really wish the founding fathers had covered things in a little more detail.

        “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…regardless of whether the terms are consecutive.”

        • kestrel7_7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 hours ago

          The founding fathers didn’t come up with the 22nd amendment, that was done in the late 40’s after FDR was elected four times in a row. The founding fathers intentionally left that one open, I think

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            Yes, it was intentional. They wanted the Constitution to be revised and expanded as necessary, rather than being bad law set in stone. They were well aware they couldn’t foresee the many issues that would come up, especially over time. That’s why the Constitution is often described as a “framework” for the US’s “laboratories of democracy”.

  • Whostosay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Donald Trump joked with rally-goers on Thursday evening that he had “the right to run again”

    His allies have dismissed the president’s claims as a joke.

    We know where you stand guardian, didn’t need to tell on yourself that directly.

    • FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      40 minutes ago

      The Guardian has always condemned Trump

      They have consistently pointed out his corruption, failures and all the bullshit

      If you think The Guardian is supportive of Trump in any way, I question your level of media literacy

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    He doesn’t, obviously, per law.

    Though law no longer matters and he will anyway, if he doesn’t die before then, which I think he will since his dementia is so advanced. But whatever.

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

    He has the right to pay for as many runs as he wants, but he can only shit in the oval office twice if elected. Is his argument that he has never actually been elected?