you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 59 points 9 hours ago (7 children)

"But what if it means two in a row!?!?!!?"

That's a literal claim from some Republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

    No no it has to be the first term, interrupted, then second, then third. The reason? Because they need to exclude Obama from running again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    I've heard this too. Utter insanity. Quick, dig up and reanimate the corpse of Carter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    And why wouldn't it be?

    To be a Republican is to be a grifter/conman/shitstain. Cheating is always on the table.

    I know it's hard to plan for all eventualities, but I really wish the founding fathers had covered things in a little more detail.

    "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...regardless of whether the terms are consecutive."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    The founding fathers didn’t come up with the 22nd amendment, that was done in the late 40’s after FDR was elected four times in a row. The founding fathers intentionally left that one open, I think

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 hours ago*

    Yes, it was intentional. They wanted the Constitution to be revised and expanded as necessary, rather than being bad law set in stone. They were well aware they couldn't foresee the many issues that would come up, especially over time. That's why the Constitution is often described as a "framework" for the US's "laboratories of democracy".

  • source
  • parent