698
Why plans are already in motion for a Trump third term – no matter what the law says
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
698 points (98.3% liked)
News
35724 readers
2595 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, but if Trump refuses to leave office then he will need some serious guards. My understanding of the Constitution is that he becomes a domestic threat at that point and "fighting him" is technically legal ... and required by anyone that took an oath to defend the Constitution.
Technically he's barred from office per the 14th amendment.
Technically is great until it's ignored.
The people who wrote the 14th amendmend fucked up. They did not specify how the disqualification clause is supposed to be invoked.
I mean, how are we suppose to invoke that?
States? If so, red states could just ban democrats by abusing the disqualification clause.
Conviction in courts? Well, trump never got convicted for treason/sedition. States convictionss of fraud isn't disqualifying.
Simple Majority in congress? Well, again, a unified congress can just use it to disqualify the other party.
Supermajority? Well, that would never happen.
Supreme court? Well... look at the composition of the court
So... yea... somebody fucked up.
Blame the authors of the 14th amendment.
I'm pretty sure the Founders were under the impression that we'd rewrite the Constitution periodically when we discovered loopholes or other new problems they didn't foresee.
You mean like how every other country handles their constitution? That's crazy talk.
You mean like all the amendments?
I do not, nor did they.
A whole lotta idiots think that our Constitution was divinely inspired by the character of Jesus from their storybooks and that it should never be changed. Of course, many of these very same idiots think this is a xtian nation.
It is impossible to write an eternal constitution. Believing that is the biggest flaw of the American mindset.
——- Thomas Jefferson, 1931
Ideally the courts would rule on it and it would be up to congress with a supermajority to reverse it.
To be clear, a court did rule that he committed treason and was barred from running. SCOTUS did not say they were wrong, they only stated that they (the fucking courts) did not have the power to APPLY THE CONSTITUTION.
So yeah. It would be up to the courts to apply the constitution and SCOTUS would have the final word. I'm not sure why it would be any different from any other ammendment.
As dispicable as the court is, I agree with their decision.
If a Colorado court can decide to remove a candidate, then all the republicans need to do is get a majority in the courts of swing states and they would forever have the presidency.
Ideally, it should be completely overhauled SCOTUS with something like 15 seats, and every year, a seat expires, on staggered terms, with each justice serving 15 years.
Since a president can only serve a maximum of 8 years*, they could at most have 8 of 15 justices. Something as serious as disqualifying a candidate for federal office should require 2/3 of the SCOTUS's total membership, so at least 10 of the 15 seats on SCOTUS.
A president serving 4 years could at best fill 4 of 15 seats, so even a corrupt president still leaves 11/15 uncorrupted judges.
Also congress has to approve the judges (ideally both houses, by simple majority)
And for intra-term vacancies, they should be filled by 2/3 supermajority, but if bipartisanship is impossible, they'll just have to wait out the seat to expire.
Maybe I should design the political system. 🤔 I've been doing a lot of worldbuilding stuff for a novel I want to write.
It should be up SCOTUS to validate or invalidate Colorado's findings. It would never be Colorado as the final word. That's how the courts already work. Lower courts rule and higher courts can take further action if needed.
I'm all for SCOTUS reform though.
ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed for senate! Hmm, I think we're gonna need you a new name, bud.
"I'm sure THIS will be the time he faces consequences for blatantly regarding both law and custom! Institutional inertia will protect us now for sure!" say a bunch of ignorant shitlibs for the 1,293,762nd time.
I first took that oath 20 years ago. If orange idiot refuses to leave, I will be exercising my constitutional legal actions.
25 years ago here. I guess we get to see if youth and zeal can beat experience and underhanded tactics :)
"A Riot is the Language of the Unheard"
-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Never took an oath, but I'd stand beside you.
The constitution means whatever the guy with the biggest guns says it means.
He's already a domestic threat, he doesn't care about the Constitution or laws
Don't all Americans take that oath every day in school?