politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Nope.
Even if they repealed the 22nd Amendment, we don't allow ex post facto laws, so the repeal wouldn't apply to him.
United States Constitution
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Article 1, Section 10
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
In case you're wondering, "Bill of Attainder":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
"an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and providing for a punishment, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself."
Who's going to enforce it? The House? The Senate? The supreme Court?
The law is just pieces of paper if the people who are supposed to enforce it don't want to.
Our repeated mistake is believing a guy that has no history of following rules and norms will suddenly decide to follow them as the most powerful "CEO" on the planet.
The states control the elections, enough of them could literally just refuse to put him on the ballot.
The Supreme Court already told them they can't do that to get Trump on this ballot after he violated the 14th Amendment with his failed insurrection attempt last time. And they went with it. Why would they do this any differently?
The supreme court has no ability to enforce their decisions. The states can and have ignored their orders in the past.
If an order comes back that's blatant enough, there will be pushback.
https://www.wglt.org/illinois/2024-11-13/jb-pritzker-and-colorados-jared-polis-launch-governors-coalition-to-protect-against-threats-of-autocracy-under-trump
What prevented the states from not listing the insurrectionist this last time?
Also, what state would stand up to the fascist that* they elected?
Also, when you’re the weak one in the group of fascists, a state* AG, Governor, or guy running the election, how long do you think you’d live or remain employed beyond you deciding to rock the boat here?
The Democrats never wanted him off the ballot, half the party, and all the powerful members, committed to the sloganeering 'beat him at the ballot box' whenever the 14th was discussed They wanted to run against Trump again, and why not, record fundraising evry time they do, even when they lose.
Is it more than 270 electoral votes worth? No? Then the blue states can have their little tantrum while the GOP laughs all the way back to a majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
Changes to the law are only considered ex post facto laws in the United States when they bring about a criminal punishment - So prosecutors couldn't charge Trump if the 22nd amendment was changed to only allow 1 term, for example. So if the 22nd amendment was altered to allow for more terms, it would not be considered an Ex post facto law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull
IANAL, but this is what I was taught in high school
Also within this very hypothetical scenario, the act of seeking a third term is after the hypothetical amendment, so there is no ex post facto in any case.
If he runs again anyway, what are you going to do? Sue the POTUS in federal court?
That’s a good law, I wonder how long until they change it.
Ex post facto refers to criminal laws. Nothing to do with administrative processes. The retroactivity or not of such laws is based on a substantive due process analysis.
Pray.
These people seem to be good at finding all the cracks in the system like roaches.
Not hard to see when you're a powermonger that regularly ignores rules.
"Who's gonna stop me from doing this? That guy? Let's replace him. New guy, you gonna stop me? No? We cool then."
Any amendment would be on the same level, and therefore its down to what's more specific.