We should not be acting as if we need confirmation that a third term is not a possibility.

This is just dumb.

I trust Dan Goldman enough that he knows what the intent is supposed to be (including for future elections and campaign material).

with public opinion. And we've seen how bad we are at fighting back against their efforts.

ignoring precedents, it needs to be kept in mind as a real possibility since they manage to find all kinds of ridiculous loopholes like "immunity" (that's not even in the Constitution) to use to justify their criminality.

Undermining institutions is a classic move from the authoritarian playbook,
and Trump is already working to gut checks and balances.

Roe was settled law. Birthright citizenship is settled law and now they are coming for that too.

privacy but on the more solid ground of equal justice under the law. I dunno how they could come at birthright citizenship, seems absurd to me.

1. Deny citizenship affirming documents to U.S.-born children of undocumented migrants.
That doesn't take away citizenship, but it makes it difficult to prove.

2. Defy the 14th Amendment as much they can and use right-wing judges to chip away at it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-gunning-birthright-citizenship-testing-110000226.html

Number 3 is a long stretch, but don't rule it out. Declare a state of invasion in which
undocumented immigrants are unlawful combatants, not subjects of U.S. law.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/11/trump-scotus-supreme-court-short-list-flip-flop-james-ho.html

We're entering year no. 9 of this shit.

Do we really have to feel that insecure about our democracy, that we have to ask that question?

I called into the Thom Hartmann show. Before the call I knew full well that Trump and the Republicans would try to put Trump back in the White House. I'm no political genius. Given Trumps narcissistic sociopathic personality and the corruption of the Republican party it was obvious.

Thom has a couple congress members as guests every week. One is Congressman Mark Pocan and the other is Congressman Ro Khanna. I don't remember which was the guest the day

In my opinion, after the events of January 6 and Trump's involvement in those events, the single most important issue for Democrats in Congress to address was keeping Trump out of the White House.

When you call into Thom's show you're supposed to ask a question of the guest. So, my question was something like "What will the Democrats do to Trump proof the Presidency?"

Apparently, after doing nothing to block Trump from the White House for almost 4 frigging years since I asked that question, they've decided to make a misguided feeble attempt at "Trump proofing" the Presidency by "asking" their corrupt Republican "friends across the aisle" to pretty please with sugar on it don't let the narcissistic sociopath fascist have a third term.

We're going to ASK!?!?!?!

WE'RE GOING TO ASK!?!?!?!

Fuck that. We really need more aggressive leaders fighting for us in Congress. No more Marcus of Queensbury's rules followers puhleeese.

That'll scare him!

And we all know how that turned out.

Trump doesn't give one flying fuck about the Constitution. Hell, he talks about "suspending" it all the damn time.

It should have said "convicted of insurrection in a federal court", otherwise who's to say who is or isn't one?

overthrow the government or you're not. But yes, if there is a NEED for a conviction in a federal court, that should indeed be clarified.

Considering historical context, I very much doubt that was what the writers had in mind, however.

I find it incredibly telling and enormously hypocritical that some state courts ruled that he did in fact engage in insurrection, but could somehow still run for president, completely flying in the face of what the clause states.

I'm not one of them, but an argument can be made that he didn't tell them to storm the Capital. Some say he should have been convicted of inciting a riot, a somewhat lesser charge.

I think since it's a federal election, it woukd likely have to be a federal court. He should have been immediately tried.

Former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that presidents should be able to run for a third term as long as they take off some time after their second term.

“I’ve always thought that should be the rule,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think as a practical matter, you couldn’t apply this to anyone who has already served, but going forward, I personally believe that should be the rule.”

Clinton made the remark in the context of a question posed by “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough, who said that many wished that Clinton could run again.

“Shouldn’t a president be able to take two terms, take time off and run again? Shouldn’t Americans have that choice?” asked Scarborough. He cited former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who led his country during World War II and again in the 1950s, as an example.

more: https://www.politico.com/story/2011/11/clinton-let-presidents-serve-3-terms-067838

IMO that is what Gingrich was striving for when he chose to turn the Republican Party into a stridently contrarian opposition party.

amendment so this can happen. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your retirement.

I'm not really a fan of the 22nd myself.

After going to Merde Lardo and kissing the feet of the Treasonous Pig.
You know damn well he wants Dotard to stay (p)resident as long as possible.

They wanted to limit another FDR from taking office for more than two terms.

In other words, a person could become President for a partial term, in the case of death or resignation, and that partial term must be 2 years or less. This is what happened in the case of LBJ after the murder of John F. Kennedy. Then Johnson ran for reelection and won in 1964. He was still eligible to run again in 1968, since he had only served 5.1 years by then. But the Vietnam War changed things and Johnson decided not to run for reelection a 2nd time.

If Kennedy had died a year earlier, then Johnson would have been President for 6.1 years in 1968. In that case he would have been constitutionally disallowed from running again.

It says you can only be elected twice.

Likely to turn into a drumbeat while Trump "serves". The USSC is corrupt to the degree would be willing to rule on the question of a 3rd inconsecutive term. More dangerous bull shit.

Why on god's green earth is this even remotely being considered? Sort of like some question about Santa Claus, or if the Pope can tell Muslims what to do or believe.

Honestly, doesn't anyone there have any remote understanding of the Constitution? What am I missing here????