• Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Americans are just letting these guys touch them right in the constitution.

    It’s so wild after all those lies about freedom and the right choice.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not really. There’s no way this passes. The constitutional amendment process is too complicated even for broadly popular ideas to get through. Anything blatantly partisan like this is DOA.

      There’s some other novel legal theories (read: dumb as shit, but our Supreme Court might let it through, anyway) on how Trump could bypass the constitutional term limits, but I doubt even those will work.

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m just waiting for the Supreme Court to declare part of the Constitution unconstitutional.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh they already did.

          A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

      • LucidNightmare@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Wasn’t there also something in the constitution about insurrection…? Yeah… I don’t think they care about it.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The issue with that one was tangled up with “what is an insurrection, anyway?”. Most of the other presidential requirements have zero room for interpretation, including this one. States wouldn’t even put him on the ballot.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It would still have to get through the Senate and 38ish State Legislatures. This isn’t a serious thing.

  • HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Can’t happen

    Congress: A two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate is required

    Constitutional convention: Two-thirds of state legislatures must call for a convention

    Ratification

    Three-fourths of state legislatures or conventions must ratify the amendment

    Each state legislature must vote on the amendment in an up-or-down vote

    State legislatures cannot change the language of the amendment

    This bill is DOA, it’s just (more) political theater

    If anything it’s an admission of the realization that Trump won’t be able to accomplish much of anything in just 4 years at the pace government functions

    • felixthecat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hitler didn’t become dictator by playing by the rules. Why do you think Trump will?

      Hitler burned down the German Congress. Trump will do something similar if he can.

      Basically our only hope is if the CIA, FBI, secret service, and us armed forces refuse his orders. Step 1 will be putting his cronies in positions of power and firing anyone who stands up to him.

      Our only hope is that they refuse the firing and take over their respective office, that employees are loyal to them and not Trump. Specifically this is most important in the us armed forces among the generals. But then our best case scenario is a civil war.

      Civil war or dictatorship is on the horizon and there is no stopping it.

      • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        He already replaced the leader of the Coast Guard. That’s how you start. It’s already happening people. Recognize.

    • Laurel Raven@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re a lot more optimistic than I am that they’ll actually follow the rules, even in how to change the rules…

    • thefluffiest@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Can’t happen

      Know your history. Pieces of paper don’t mean shit when the right political circumstances arise / are manufactured.

      -edit: case in point, recent article by The Atlantic

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        People still think they care about the law and it mystifies me.

        You don’t need to follow the law when you are the law.

    • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh totally, if you are playing by the rules then this can’t happen.

      What happens if the GOP appoints him as their candidate in 4 years time? Presumably someone asks the supreme court to weigh in, but given it’s current make up, what happens if they say “yeah sure, because democrats are The Enemy” or something?

      It’s just people, breaking the rules is always an option. Rules and laws only work if they are enforceable - and at the end of the day, who would be enforcing that he can’t run? The military? State militias?

      • HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I fully expect them to come up with some kind of insane rationale to try to get around the 22nd amendment and it will come down to a stacked deck supreme court to rule on its constitutionality

        It will be fun to watch the Supreme Court justices try their best to distort reality on an amendment specifically designed to handle instances such as this.

        It’s going to be a brain melter for sure

        I think I might just sell everything I own, quit my job and move somewhere low cost and tropical after November 7, 2028

        I wish I had already done it. I just honestly didn’t think America would elect a convicted felon. Even just misspelling the word “potato” used to be a deal breaker

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well here’s the workaround for the 22nd.

          It says no such president can be elected more than twice. So if Trump is the running mate of a stand in President, that president can step down and Trump take over. He could technically have that third term.

          • Laurel Raven@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            He’d be ineligible to be vice president as well

            Not that this would stop them, of course

            Seeing as he’s literally already ineligible to be president this time since he incited an insurrection, and his entire second administration and everything it does is by extension illegal and unconstitutional

            • jj4211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I was curious where precisely it would state that a person disqualified by the 22nd amendment can’t be VP either. I mean it’s common sense, but I haven’t seen it. Of course if they had their heartset on it, one wonders if the could just name him speaker of the house and then have both step down.

              The technicality on the insurrection is that he was never found responsible by any federal court.

              The question is whether they keep trying to “technically” around the Constitution versus dropping all pretense. It seems that, so far, they still value the optics of compliance. But we are so so early in the term…

              • Laurel Raven@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I’m not seeing it on a quick look either, I thought it was spelled out but I think it’s mainly assumed that since the VP’s only real duties beyond the president of the Senate is as a replacement for the president and would need to actually be able to hold that position to be vp.

                But I think you’re right, that’s just largely held to be the case but not explicitly defined.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      You’re assuming the constitution will still mean something by the time his firstsecond term ends. That’s exactly why they’re pushing all sorts of unconstitutional shit. The executive branch is the one that has the power to enforce or not enforce laws, and the only recourse the legislative branch has is impeachment, which we’ve seen twice isn’t going to happen. Especially when the supreme court is beholden to him too.

        • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I mean, was he wrong? Insurrection, separation of powers, no one being above the law, Roe. v. Wade, etc. I would say that since 2021 the constitution has not really meant that much apparently.