politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Let's play a game.
Suppose the Republicans shut the government down in 2026. They want to pass a law that makes Trump president for life. The Dems vote no.
One month passes. What happens?
They don't have near enough votes to amend the Constitution, so it wouldn't happen whether the government were open or not.
Or they can just...you know...ignore that part.
Of course. But proposing a law that will never get passed doesn't affect that one way or the other.
It will pass given the proper incentive. Just need to make the Dems sweat a bit, and they'll pass anything.
Rhe point being made is that a law on the books in direct contradiction of the Constitution does nothing. If they want to keep Trump in power past '28 without modifying the Constitution, then a law such as the one suggested would make literally no difference, legally.
Oh, I'm sure that the Supreme Court can think up of something to make it legal. There's a popular theory going around that Trump might go the "first term of the 47th" route to remain in power. If the SCOTUS goes with that definition, then Trump gets a third term without adding any amendments.
How?
Nothing about "no presidency shall last more than two terms" or "no President shall be elected more than twice" to make a "47th" argument. No person.
Is Trump 45 a different person from Trump 47? If so, then can we prosecute Trump 45, who is not currently President, for his crimes? I mean, of course his own DoJ wouldn't. But still.
This is how. I'll put the relevant amendment part here so we know what we're working with:
The SCOTUS can claim that the office of President renews, and the old one ceases to exist. Thus, they can say that Trump was elected to the 45th and 47th offices of President, each once. They can further state that the 22nd amendment specifically refers to being elected to one of these particular offices of President, of which 47 have existed to date.
The SCOTUS can then conclude that, since Trump has not been elected to the 47th office of President more than twice, he is eligible for a second term of the 47th office of President. To us, this would be his third, but to the SCOTUS, it would be his second.
I can't see how anyone would go with this. He also has never been the 48th President, so why not let his number just increment.
Also, the amendment uses the definite article, "the office of the President". Not an office, or office of a President. I understand that 5 justices can just say whatever the hell they want, but virtually anyone would understand this is neither the intent NOR the most sensible reading of the text.
That's what a potential shutdown in Trump's third term would solve.
For 2028, go with the 2nd term of 47th logic to get Trump in again.
Then, pass a new law to clarify the index logic, and allow for Trump's time as 47th to transition into 48th in 2032. Shutdown the government to force the Dems to vote yes on it.
Trump remains President until the day he dies.