99

im 100% canadian, I dont live in the US and wondering about your system.

so as i understand your political system, a president can only hold office 2 terms. in Trumps case, he served once already, does that mean he can only serve one more, or is the clock reset and he gets a shot at 8 years?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] radix@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," doesn't say consecutively. It would take a HUUUUGE leap of logic to insert that word where it doesn't exist. I'm sure someone will make the argument, but by the letter and the intent of the law, Trump is done after this term.

"and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." If Trump has a heart attack and dies before January 20, 2027, Vance would take over and serve 2+ years as President, meaning he could only be elected once for one four-year term.

The rest of Section 1 just means anyone who was in office at the time is grandfathered into the old rules (no limits).

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 49 points 1 month ago

It would take a HUUUUGE leap of logic

US Fifth Circuit of Appeals and Supreme Courts: "Hold My Beer"

For example, if Trump's Republican Congress gets rid of elections, then this Amendment doesn't matter.

[-] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago

They probably won't get rid of elections... they'll just have sham elections like Russia has to give the impression of "legitimacy" but I guarantee they'll be heavily rigged in their favor.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Trump's SCOTUS: trump isn't a person, he's an idea, a movement, therefore term limits are not applicable to him.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In that case they should free his would be assassins, nothing illegal about trying to kill a movement, just ask the CIA, they do it all the time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

The logic train has left the station in the US judicial system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 60 points 1 month ago

Legally he can't. But legally that fucker should have been in jail long ago, so who knows.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

Right, there's also a constitutional amendment saying insurrectionists can't stand for office

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

I really wish Biden had gone after him 10% as hard as he went after Sanders.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Biden is the chief executive I don't know why the courts had any say in executing a law that is already on the books. A strong president would have done his job executing the law and making the SC enforce their over reaching decision themselves.

Does it even matter? trump can get convicted of insurrection but the supreme court can just decide that he hasnt committed an act of insurrection based on their interpretation.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Too bad people who wrote that didn't specify what it meant.

Like does it mean:

A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.

B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection

C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection

D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection.

E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection.

Because

A is just dumb,

B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.

C also allows partisan shenanigans

D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.

E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection.

So yea they should've worded it better on what it means.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] stinerman@midwest.social 51 points 1 month ago

Legally he's only got 2 terms. However as my government teacher explained, the constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. So who knows what they'll say about it.

[-] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 9 points 1 month ago

They'd have to do some "creative interpretation" of the law

[-] stinerman@midwest.social 9 points 1 month ago

They've already said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't exist.

[-] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago

Very creative

[-] TBi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

He didn’t win the popular vote first time so they’ll argue he wasn’t “elected” then.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hircon@ttrpg.network 39 points 1 month ago

It's 2 total terms. There's no "resetting the clock" in that rule. Any attempt to remain in power for a third term would be blatantly unconstitutional.

That said, there's a real concern that he's likely to try anyway, and a non-zero chance that he'd succeed if he manages to fill enough of the government and military with people more loyal to him than to the constitution.

[-] Kayday@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

It's worth mentioning that this has only been the case since the 1950's. FDR was elected four times and died during his final term, after which term limits were added to the constitution in response.

[-] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago

It's also worth adding, though, that the convention of only running for at most two terms had existed pretty much since the establishment of the republic (until FDR broke it), when Washington and Jefferson each chose not to run for third terms

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Yup, Washington was wildly popular at the time. He easily could have stayed in office indefinitely, as long as nothing horrible happened. But his reasoning was that they had just rebelled against a monarchy, and he didn’t intend to start another one.

[-] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 29 points 1 month ago

US Presidents are limited to two terms, it doesn’t matter if they are consecutive. Grover Cleveland is the only other president who has served two non-consecutive terms.

Term-limits are a relatively recent addition though, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was only ratified in 1951 after Franklin Roosevelt served four terms.

[-] jqubed@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

And just an addendum for non-Americans who also aren’t likely/don’t have time to click the links, FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was elected to 4 terms but died 82 days into his 4th term. He was succeeded by the vice president, Harry S. Truman.

Prior to FDR all presidents had voluntarily limited themselves to 2 terms following the precedent of the first president, George Washington. FDR’s running for a 3rd term was controversial at the time; in 1940 the U.S. had not yet joined the Second World War and intervening was still controversial, although opposition dwindled with the fall of France. Interestingly, FDR seeking a 4th term was much less controversial with the U.S. in the thick of the war in 1944. The constitution was amended a few years later to make sure it didn’t happen again, though.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago

Not always voluntary. Some tried for a third term and failed. Theo Roosevelt tried for a third term in 1912. Though his first term was taking over after McKinley was assassinated, but it was only some months in, and that would be covered as a first full term under the later amendment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 28 points 1 month ago

You can only serve 2 terms. Period. Doesn't matter if there is a gap between the terms. He served one. This is his last time, unless he does exactly what he plans to and eliminates elections to become SUPREME OVERLORD OF AMERICA.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

He gets two terms, whether they're split up or not. This is his last term by law.

He's probably just going to stay anyway, because Republicans have managed to infect government with the kinds of losers who would back something like that.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago

It means this is his last term, barring any changes to the law or extralegal shenanigans, period.

[-] james_tiberius 19 points 1 month ago

Correct, this is the last time he can be elected.

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxii

[-] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

Unless you change the rules with the help of the supreme court of which you elected several judges. I mean, Xi and Putin did it, why can't Trump?

[-] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

By all means, I'd expect him to try, however, this is a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court can't take back an amendment the way they can strike down laws (I.e. by ruling it unconstitutional for whatever reason), because it IS constitutional by definition.

Thankfully, the Constitution is also very specific about what it takes to amend it further. 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, or 2/3 of state legislatures must vote to just propose an amendment, and then, to pass the amendment, they need 3/4 of the vote. Because the process is enumerated, there's no legal ambiguity they can use to shape their ruling the way they want. To remove term limits, you must amend the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, you must meet these (intentionally) high thresholds. If A -> then B.

So, unless Trump is able to woo half of the sitting Democrats, as well as 100% of the Republicans, we're safe from the system being used to guillotine itself (instead, the system will spend the next 4 years hitting itself in the face with a bat). Now, if Trump wants to seize power outside of the system, that's a different ball game, and the relative friendliness of judges and Congress is a moot point.

[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The Supreme Court can’t take back an amendment the way they can strike down laws (I.e. by ruling it unconstitutional for whatever reason), because it IS constitutional by definition.

Yeah, but the problem is that the Supreme Court are also the arbiters of the interpretation of the document, and there's nothing to suggest that they can't simply come out and say "Oh, it means two consecutive terms", which is exactly what Putin does in Russia with their term limits - some stooge takes over for a term and then Putin wins in yet another landslide.

I mean, the 22nd Amendment is very clean, IMO. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" is pretty unambiguous, but I really can't put anything past this corrupt administration. A coup is probably more likely, but if Trump can somehow get the law on his side he won't need to, so I'm sure he would prefer that route.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I hope accurate assinations make a come back if that happens.

[-] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Accurate Assassinations is a nice band name.

[-] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 month ago

Short of congress changing the law or a successful coup, neither of which are necessarily off the table, yes these next four years will be Trump's last in office. Who knows what either party will have to offer in 2028.

[-] zagaberoo@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 month ago

Thankfully it is not a law and congress can't change it. It's the 22nd amendment to the constitution and thus would require 3/4 of the states to ratify a change. A coup is more likely.

[-] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago

Or the Supreme Court makes something up about why it doesn’t count

[-] zagaberoo@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Legally, yes. (But of course, the Supreme Court has turned interpreting the Constitution into a game of Calvinball.)

[-] Sabata11792@ani.social 12 points 1 month ago

The only exception I know to 2 terms and 8 years are getting moved from vice president to president and I think that also has a limit. The problem is the US president is now above the law and no one other than congress can stop him, and his sycophants own congress.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

You can only be elected as president twice. You can probably hack the system by getting multiple other presidents to select you as vice president, then resign. If you serve more than 2 years of the term they were elected to, that reduces the number of times you can be elected as president to one.

The 22nd amendment doesn't say that someone that serves 3.99 years of another president's term multiple times can't still be elected, and it doesn't say that someone not qualified to be elected as president can't be elected as vice president, but the 12th amendment might. Either of those could be an interesting legal fight.

[-] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

That's against the rules though. I think it's the 13th amendment that says a president who was elected twice can't be selected as VP.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DemBoSain@midwest.social 9 points 1 month ago

I think it's technically written as 10 years. If a vice president replaced the president, he could serve 2 more terms as long as he only replaced the president for 2 years. If he served out more than 2 years, he could only be president for 1 additional term.

[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

It's two terms period. They do not have to be consecutive. There are ways for a President to serve more than 8 years but it's very specific and not really applicable in Trumps case. Unless they decide to toss out the constitution, which honestly seems kinda likely, then it's two terms.

But he's also a 80 year old man who eats McDonalds and coca cola while painting himself with orange, probably lead based, paint. I don't expect him to survive the next 4 years to be able to run again.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

"Walk for president"

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The two term limit was set by the 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The language in it is that no person may be elected to the office of President for more than two terms. It does not specify any criteria about consecutive terms, meaning it doesn't matter. They simply can't be elected more than twice to the office President under any conditions. It also specifies that if they served more than two years as President when they weren't elected to that office (such as when a VP assumes the office after the President dies), they can't be elected to the office of President more than once. In other words, a 2+ year term of a president after succeeding the previous president whose term ends early, counts as a full term in regard to this 2 term limit.

In other words, this SHOULD be his last term. There are two legal loopholes, however. 1) If he somehow managed to coerce a skip or elimination of the next election, he could assume another term without defying the constitution. There is currently no mechanism to do that, but an act of a partisan Congress upheld by the partisan Supreme Court could make such a thing possible. 2) if he ran as VP for another person, which is constitutionally allowed, he could be elected as VP and then the elected President could resign, die, or be removed from office and Trump would be President again. Also, a new amendment to the constitution could be passed to negate or modify the 22nd amendments' term limit. Though that would require a lot of Democrats also voting for it.

[-] radix@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
  1. if he ran as VP for another person, which is constitutionally allowed, he could be elected as VP

This is an interesting, but untested, legal theory. When Al Gore ran in 2000, there were murmurings of whether he should try to get Bill Clinton on the ticket as VP. Ultimately, there was some consensus that this part of 12th Amendment wasn't superseded by any others: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

It's a bit of an open question whether that means only those parts of the eligibility requirements in place at the time (35 years old, natural born citizen, etc), or whether new requirements are also included, such as already serving two full terms as President. Clinton/Gore didn't want to push those boundaries, but Trump certainly could try.

Edit: The 2012 book Constitutional Cliffhangers has a whole chapter dedicated to this and similar scenarios. It became a must-read in Trump's first term, and is even more of one now.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Honestly, I would be very surprised if he were disallowed. Not only because, as you said, it is unclear if the 12th amendment eligibility conditions apply to conditions added after the 12th amendment and make no reference to modifying it. But also because the 22nd amendment does not, in fact, specify that someone who has served two terms is ineligible to be President. Rather it is very specifically a condition about being elected to president. If we're interpreting the constitution strictly literally, the 22nd amendment doesn't make a new condition for eligibility to be President, only for being elected president. So the 12th amendment would not apply. That may not have been the intent, but if anyone thinks the same Supreme Court that ruled that the President has absolute immunity on the use of his presidential powers isn't going to let Trump slide right through that loophole... well, you could probably convince them it was raining as you piss on their leg.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Assuming he abides by constitutional law, this will be his final term.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

Assuming he doesn't change the rules and appoint himself president forever, then the limit is 2 terms, consecutive or not.

Even if a person started their presidential mandate partway through a 4 year cycle (as happened after Nixon stepped down and after Kennedy was shot), it's still 2 terms, not necessarily 8 years.

If Trump dies in the next 4 years, Vance could serve out the current term and would only be eligible to become president for one additional term.

[-] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Two terms, regardless if consecutive or not.

Technically the limit is on if a person can be elected to the office. It might be possible for a person that have been elected president 2 times to the run for vice president and have a loyalist run as president, then have the loyalist resign after getting sworn in and making the VP president. But a person that isnt eligible for president should not be eligible for vice president either. But we dont know if this means a person who isnt eligible to be elected president can become vice president, since the person can still serve as president, just not elected to it. We don't know since this has never been court tested.

Also if a person serve less than 2 years, they can still run for 2 terms. So even without the "president resign and VP becomes president" shenanigan, a person can technically serve for 10 years minus 1 day.

Also, the speaker of the house does not have to be a member of the house. So technically a person who has been elected 2 terms can be chosen as speaker of the house, then have the president and vice president resign and the person now become acting president for the rest of the term. I'm pretty sure this maneuver doesnt need to go through courts since you can become speaker of the house even if you are inelligible to become president or vice president, so it wouldn't prevent the person from being speaker, and the text on the 22nd amendment only prevents a person form being elected more than twice, no mention of any limit on if a person can serve or act as president.

Anyways, thanks for coming to my ted talk on political shenanigans.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
99 points (96.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36057 readers
501 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS