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?
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.
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.
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.
Or the Supreme Court makes something up about why it doesn’t count
I’d call that a coup!
A rare palace coup, perhaps?
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.
Iirc if the vice replaces the pres after the halfway mark of the term they can server two full terms.
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.
They’d have to do some “creative interpretation” of the law
They’ve already said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t exist.
Very creative
He didn’t win the popular vote first time so they’ll argue he wasn’t “elected” then.
No
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).
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.
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.
Now I’m curious: if Person A serves two full terms as US president, then Person B (from the same party) runs and chooses A as their vice-president, and then steps down, what would happen? Would A be unable to be picked as B’s Vice President in first place, or would A simply be legally unable to be sworn in as President after B stepped down and the Speaker of the House gets the position instead?
Trump’s SCOTUS: trump isn’t a person, he’s an idea, a movement, therefore term limits are not applicable to him.
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.
Then I too declare myself to be Trump. I’ll take the Presidency Mon-Tues, he can have it Weds-Thurs, and we’ll do alternating Fri-Sat-Sun weekends.
The logic train has left the station in the US judicial system.
Legally he can’t. But legally that fucker should have been in jail long ago, so who knows.
Right, there’s also a constitutional amendment saying insurrectionists can’t stand for office
I really wish Biden had gone after him 10% as hard as he went after Sanders.
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.
Whos gonna enforce their decision? Every cop and every corrections officer in the country are under the executive branch and answer to the president, not the judicial or legislative branches. What Biden tells them goes, no ifs ands or buts.
States run elections. Even if Biden were do try to prevent trump from appearing on the ballot, the states doesnt have to obey, especially if the supreme court’s decision is contrary to the president’s orders. And if trump appears on ballots, throwing him in prison wont do any good since if elected, as he did in our timeline, he becomes president on January 20th and can order the military to break him out of prison, whether state or federal prison.
And if the states somehow prevented trump from appearing on ballots, we’d be in a constitutional crisis and also a state vs federal government political crisis. Pro trump supporters will cite the supreme court decision as a rallying call to trump supporters around the country to protest, and use violence if necesary.
Well you might say, who cares what his supporters have to say. But the point is if the 14th amendment has a more clear procedures of how to invoke the part about insurrectionists being inelibible. trump could be barred from office and the prorests would’ve been minimal since the media would portay it as more legitimate. But unfortunately, the 14th amendment is so vague that the supreme court decision would paint a different picture in the media and in public opinion, making it seem like Biden is being tyrannical.
Well its a good thing Biden avoided seeming like a tyrant so that an actual tyrant could take power. That makes it make sense. Maybe I just don’t have the money and comfort afforded to politicians and that’s why I don’t understand their decision making. Most of these ghould probably made a lot of money during the Trump years.
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.
It should be E and the DOJ should have made sure that this was handled in a court of law in the first 100 days. Or maybe even a specialised tribunal for insurrection.
How did they handle the insurrectionists post civil war?
Being President is an official act of the office of President, the President isn’t accountable for crimes as part of official acts, therefore breaking the law on Presidential term limits by staying President is legal.
Can’t someone run for President, name Trump his vice, then resign?
If they followed the law as written it would go to the next person in order of succession, the congressional house speaker, because he would be ineligible to hold the office after the second term.
Actually, no. The 22 amendment says that a person can’t be “elected” as President while the 25 amendment says that the Vice President shall become President in case of resignation. No contradiction here. So while Trump can’t be elected anymore he can still become President for unlimited terms.
You’re right, I thought it was hold not elected.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Same happened with Hitler. We all know how that turned out. There are humorous similarities, like addiction to amphetamines and not drinking alcohol.
People who really want to do harm always find ways to bend the rules and get away with it.
Also, given how Trump’s been even more incoherent and irrational in this election compared to 2016’s, I’d be surprised if he’s still grounded enough in reality (or even alive) to seek more terms in 2028 - he’s already in his 80s and doesn’t live a healthy lifestyle; he has supercharged billionaire-only medicine, but there are only so many miracles that medicine can do.
I guess maybe the Republicans would try to keep him as a front for PR (like a puppet president) while hiding the fact that he’s senile from the population, and governing from the shadows. Which I suppose is barely better than direct rule from Trump himself.
I hope accurate assinations make a come back if that happens.
Accurate Assassinations is a nice band name.
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.
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.
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.
I didn’t know he tried for a third term but I’m also not surprised from what I know of him
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.
It means this is his last term, barring any changes to the law or extralegal shenanigans, period.
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.
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.
The 13th ended slavery. You’re probably thinking of the 12th which says that no person constitutionally ineligible to “be” president can be elected as vice president. Importantly, the 22nd only places limits on being “elected” as president, so it’s not (necessarily) creating a constitutional requirement to “be” president by some other means.
Like I said, it could be an interesting legal fight if it even came up.
Legally, yes. (But of course, the Supreme Court has turned interpreting the Constitution into a game of Calvinball.)
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.
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.
“Walk for president”
