696
Why plans are already in motion for a Trump third term – no matter what the law says
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
696 points (98.3% liked)
News
28269 readers
5000 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The people who wrote the 14th amendmend fucked up. They did not specify how the disqualification clause is supposed to be invoked.
I mean, how are we suppose to invoke that?
States? If so, red states could just ban democrats by abusing the disqualification clause.
Conviction in courts? Well, trump never got convicted for treason/sedition. States convictionss of fraud isn't disqualifying.
Simple Majority in congress? Well, again, a unified congress can just use it to disqualify the other party.
Supermajority? Well, that would never happen.
Supreme court? Well... look at the composition of the court
So... yea... somebody fucked up.
Blame the authors of the 14th amendment.
It is impossible to write an eternal constitution. Believing that is the biggest flaw of the American mindset.
——- Thomas Jefferson, 1931
I'm pretty sure the Founders were under the impression that we'd rewrite the Constitution periodically when we discovered loopholes or other new problems they didn't foresee.
You mean like how every other country handles their constitution? That's crazy talk.
You mean like all the amendments?
I do not, nor did they.
A whole lotta idiots think that our Constitution was divinely inspired by the character of Jesus from their storybooks and that it should never be changed. Of course, many of these very same idiots think this is a xtian nation.
Ideally the courts would rule on it and it would be up to congress with a supermajority to reverse it.
To be clear, a court did rule that he committed treason and was barred from running. SCOTUS did not say they were wrong, they only stated that they (the fucking courts) did not have the power to APPLY THE CONSTITUTION.
So yeah. It would be up to the courts to apply the constitution and SCOTUS would have the final word. I'm not sure why it would be any different from any other ammendment.
As dispicable as the court is, I agree with their decision.
If a Colorado court can decide to remove a candidate, then all the republicans need to do is get a majority in the courts of swing states and they would forever have the presidency.
Ideally, it should be completely overhauled SCOTUS with something like 15 seats, and every year, a seat expires, on staggered terms, with each justice serving 15 years.
Since a president can only serve a maximum of 8 years*, they could at most have 8 of 15 justices. Something as serious as disqualifying a candidate for federal office should require 2/3 of the SCOTUS's total membership, so at least 10 of the 15 seats on SCOTUS.
A president serving 4 years could at best fill 4 of 15 seats, so even a corrupt president still leaves 11/15 uncorrupted judges.
Also congress has to approve the judges (ideally both houses, by simple majority)
And for intra-term vacancies, they should be filled by 2/3 supermajority, but if bipartisanship is impossible, they'll just have to wait out the seat to expire.
Maybe I should design the political system. 🤔 I've been doing a lot of worldbuilding stuff for a novel I want to write.
It should be up SCOTUS to validate or invalidate Colorado's findings. It would never be Colorado as the final word. That's how the courts already work. Lower courts rule and higher courts can take further action if needed.
I'm all for SCOTUS reform though.
ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed for senate! Hmm, I think we're gonna need you a new name, bud.