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
Keep in mind that they don't need a Constitutional Amendment to pull this off by hook or by crook. It's just the "cleanest" way. They do have other options at their disposal:
Someone could come up with a "reinterpretation" of the 14th amendment that says it doesn't apply to Trump because he served non-consecutive terms or somesuch. In this political climate, all they need is for it to be juuuuuust plausible enough to sound legitimate and that's probably good enough.
Trump could just file a lawsuit, probably through Aileen Cannon's court, and argue that the 14th amendment is unenforceable, similar to what they did when Colorado removed Trump from the ballot last year. Then they just yadda yadda yadda it up to the Supreme Court that could just hand-wave the rest of the 14th amendment away like they do every time the Constitution gets in their way, resigning the 14th amendment to little more than wasted ink on old paper.
Trump could just run anyway, under the "Yeah, what the fuck are you going to do about it?" rule that has served him pretty well so far. Of course, states would then try to have him removed from the ballot again, only for the Supreme Court to step in just like they did last time, and say that states aren't empowered to actually enforce the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court decides to hear the case, but of course, delays it until the last possible moment. Then the Court rules that "It is now too late to have Trump removed from the ballot this late in the election process, so we are going to let his candidacy stand and let the people decide.", essentially giving Trump a free pass while not directly ruling on the matter to ensure that future popular Democrat doesn't try the same thing.
Congress could pass a law giving Trump an exemption from the 14th amendment, which he of course would sign into law. When the inevitable lawsuit is filed because this would be blatantly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court could simply chime in and say that this is a political matter that is not up to the courts to interfere in, and let the law stand. This would of course hold until a Democrat tries to run for a third term. Then watch how quickly they can act.
.
If any of these things seem completely ludicrous or unrealistic......these are all tactics that Trump has already successfully used in court in some form. Trump has the backing of the DOJ, a complicit Congress, a Supreme Court that has already both said and proven their willingness to accommodate Trump, especially if they can increase their own power or further shield themselves from scrutiny in the process, and about half of the state governments as well.
The Constitution is not a magical, sentient, self-enforcing papal bull. It's a really old piece of paper written by people who couldn't predict the needs of society today any better than we can predict the needs of the society of 2275. It is only enforceable so long as our three branches of government are willing to enforce it. And with all three branches right now looking at the Constitution as less the law of the land and more of a nuisance that's in their way, I wouldn't be putting too much stock in those protections holding up for very long. There is a very real possibility that this administration really could suspend the Constitution, with not only the backing of the Supreme Court, but also the thunderous applause of about half of the voting public.