If we do have the nightmare scenario of JV Dance getting elected as president, with Trump as his VP running mate, then I look forward to him getting sworn in, turning to Trump, and saying, "Who are you, and why are you standing on my stage? Deal? What deal? I don't remember any deal. GTFO."
Just so we're all aware, their argument is right out in the open on congress.gov:
"Broader language providing that no such person shall be chosen or serve as President . . . or be eligible to hold the office was rejected in favor of the Twenty-Second Amendment’s ban merely on election.2 Whether a two-term President could be elected or appointed Vice President depends upon the meaning of the Twelfth Amendment, which provides that no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President. Is someone prohibited by the Twenty-Second Amendment from being elected to the office of President thereby constitutionally ineligible to the office? Note also that neither Amendment addresses the eligibility of a former two-term President to serve as Speaker of the House or as one of the other officers who could serve as President through operation of the Succession Act.3"
You should address the Congressional record that they actually cite to. I'm no fan of this play, but after reading it I'd bet 99/100 Gorsuch is going to line up with Thomas and Alito to allow this. Kavanaugh is a toss up. Hopefully Roberts and ACB hold the line.
Yes, the discussion linked in this piece from Christian Mott addresses the change, and the expressed understanding of the senator who introduced the language (which was not to change the meaning away from ineligibility).
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. There's an old legal maxim that states "What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly." Thus, if something is directly (explicitly) prohibited, then indirect ways to achieve this goal should also be implicitly prohibited even if they themselves are not explicitly prohibited. The US Supreme Court declared in *Cummings v. Missouri* (1867) that "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not with shadows."
Think of it this way: If a constitution explicitly prohibited a particular type of constitutional amendment but did not make this amendment itself unamendable, then one could repeal this prohibition through a two-step process: First make this amendment itself amendable and then actually amend it, thus removing this prohibition. But the "What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly" would prevent that.
And Yes, absolutely, the 22nd Amendment's purpose in preventing US Presidents from serving more than 10 years in office should absolutely be used to close any legal loopholes in its wording.
Constitutional republics can’t survive this sort of fuckery. Constitutions can’t defend themselves. They are worthless unless living men and women who make up the government have the honor and decency to uphold norms. Up until Roosevelt, the first 30odd presidents weren’t constrained from a 3rd term by the constitution or any written law. It was simply a norm that they all upheld. This, more than any written rule is what keeps a democracy functioning. If those in power actively look for loopholes are absurd interpretations, they can be used to justify just about any action. No constitution can survive that behavior. A constitution is only as good as its people’s commitment to uphold its clear purpose rather than undermine it in pursuit of power
Andy Borowitz had the best take on this: Trump's arteries won't allow him to have a 3rd term.
I am sure that about half the states won't allow him to be on the ballot and would disqualify any write in votes for him. Unlike the tortured logic of the cases around section 3 of the 14th Amendment this would be a slam dunk that even this corrupt Supreme Court wouldn't try and fuck around with. I think some members of the Republican bloc are already sick of carrying water for Trump.
I have no doubt that if he is still alive, and if his prefrontal dementia hasn't advanced too far, he will mount a campaign and hold rallies to as a kind of farewell tour to bask in "the glory that is Donald Trump" not to mention another opportunity to shake down supporters for one last haul of cash.
Personally I will love watching the spectacle of the attempt.
Well, such nonsense happened before in another matter: copyright length. The Copyright Clause determines copyright exists "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times...", and yet "limited" went, through multiple revisions, from meaning 14 years to now meaning 120+ years. And Trump may go for some trickery with EOs that'd put even that to shame.
While I wholeheartedly agree, does anyone really think that the current SCOTUS won’t read the exact language used and determine that he’s good to go????
Actually I do. Half the states will not place him on the ballot because of the clear reading/meaning of the 22nd Amendment. Trumps team may raise bizarre arguments (loopholes) exist but I am sure none but perhaps Thomas and Alito (if they are still around) would buy that.
The problem is that the language is in tension with the clear meaning, which gives Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch a clear run to do whatever they want and I think at least two of the other three will take the ‘go along to get along’ path.
This is all in at least 2 years time so (God forbid) it could even be a 7-2 SCOTUS, with this issue being the litmus test for who he nominates.
Common sense has become curdled and rancidly dense. Morality has not out-lived it's expiration date, ever since religion became dark carnival. Only thing left is shopping endlessly for some shamelessly sugared junk to serve up to the gatherings as positioned political offering. Madness at the table. Hope is not a tactic.
If we do have the nightmare scenario of JV Dance getting elected as president, with Trump as his VP running mate, then I look forward to him getting sworn in, turning to Trump, and saying, "Who are you, and why are you standing on my stage? Deal? What deal? I don't remember any deal. GTFO."
Just so we're all aware, their argument is right out in the open on congress.gov:
"Broader language providing that no such person shall be chosen or serve as President . . . or be eligible to hold the office was rejected in favor of the Twenty-Second Amendment’s ban merely on election.2 Whether a two-term President could be elected or appointed Vice President depends upon the meaning of the Twelfth Amendment, which provides that no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President. Is someone prohibited by the Twenty-Second Amendment from being elected to the office of President thereby constitutionally ineligible to the office? Note also that neither Amendment addresses the eligibility of a former two-term President to serve as Speaker of the House or as one of the other officers who could serve as President through operation of the Succession Act.3"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt22-1/ALDE_00001008/#ALDF_00012483
You should address the Congressional record that they actually cite to. I'm no fan of this play, but after reading it I'd bet 99/100 Gorsuch is going to line up with Thomas and Alito to allow this. Kavanaugh is a toss up. Hopefully Roberts and ACB hold the line.
Yes, the discussion linked in this piece from Christian Mott addresses the change, and the expressed understanding of the senator who introduced the language (which was not to change the meaning away from ineligibility).
I didn't see the link! Thank you. After reading more Congressional record than I'd prefer in one day, I'm feeling better about a litigating this.
"[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not with shadows" -- *Cummings v. Missouri* (1867).
"[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not with shadows" -- *Cummings v. Missouri* (1867).
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. There's an old legal maxim that states "What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly." Thus, if something is directly (explicitly) prohibited, then indirect ways to achieve this goal should also be implicitly prohibited even if they themselves are not explicitly prohibited. The US Supreme Court declared in *Cummings v. Missouri* (1867) that "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not with shadows."
Think of it this way: If a constitution explicitly prohibited a particular type of constitutional amendment but did not make this amendment itself unamendable, then one could repeal this prohibition through a two-step process: First make this amendment itself amendable and then actually amend it, thus removing this prohibition. But the "What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly" would prevent that.
And Yes, absolutely, the 22nd Amendment's purpose in preventing US Presidents from serving more than 10 years in office should absolutely be used to close any legal loopholes in its wording.
Constitutional republics can’t survive this sort of fuckery. Constitutions can’t defend themselves. They are worthless unless living men and women who make up the government have the honor and decency to uphold norms. Up until Roosevelt, the first 30odd presidents weren’t constrained from a 3rd term by the constitution or any written law. It was simply a norm that they all upheld. This, more than any written rule is what keeps a democracy functioning. If those in power actively look for loopholes are absurd interpretations, they can be used to justify just about any action. No constitution can survive that behavior. A constitution is only as good as its people’s commitment to uphold its clear purpose rather than undermine it in pursuit of power
Andy Borowitz had the best take on this: Trump's arteries won't allow him to have a 3rd term.
I am sure that about half the states won't allow him to be on the ballot and would disqualify any write in votes for him. Unlike the tortured logic of the cases around section 3 of the 14th Amendment this would be a slam dunk that even this corrupt Supreme Court wouldn't try and fuck around with. I think some members of the Republican bloc are already sick of carrying water for Trump.
I have no doubt that if he is still alive, and if his prefrontal dementia hasn't advanced too far, he will mount a campaign and hold rallies to as a kind of farewell tour to bask in "the glory that is Donald Trump" not to mention another opportunity to shake down supporters for one last haul of cash.
Personally I will love watching the spectacle of the attempt.
Oh yeah, let me introduce you to clever lawyers and the Supreme Court.
The people who wrote the constitutions of India and Alabama needed to read that Marshall quote first.
Well, such nonsense happened before in another matter: copyright length. The Copyright Clause determines copyright exists "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times...", and yet "limited" went, through multiple revisions, from meaning 14 years to now meaning 120+ years. And Trump may go for some trickery with EOs that'd put even that to shame.
While I wholeheartedly agree, does anyone really think that the current SCOTUS won’t read the exact language used and determine that he’s good to go????
Actually I do. Half the states will not place him on the ballot because of the clear reading/meaning of the 22nd Amendment. Trumps team may raise bizarre arguments (loopholes) exist but I am sure none but perhaps Thomas and Alito (if they are still around) would buy that.
The problem is that the language is in tension with the clear meaning, which gives Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch a clear run to do whatever they want and I think at least two of the other three will take the ‘go along to get along’ path.
This is all in at least 2 years time so (God forbid) it could even be a 7-2 SCOTUS, with this issue being the litmus test for who he nominates.
Common sense has become curdled and rancidly dense. Morality has not out-lived it's expiration date, ever since religion became dark carnival. Only thing left is shopping endlessly for some shamelessly sugared junk to serve up to the gatherings as positioned political offering. Madness at the table. Hope is not a tactic.