5 ms·

Will that even matter though? There's a while before another election and longer while before the person imposing tariffs would expectedly leave.

Goronmon 1y ago
There is a non-zero chance he have at least one more term.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Non-zero in the sense that there is a non-zero chance of an outright coup. There is absolutely, unambiguously no Constitutional method by which this will ever be true.
  - sightbroke 1y ago
    It is unfortunately not as unambiguous as one may like: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-running-for-a-third-term https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-runnin...
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      No, it really is. 22nd Amendment: > 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. 12th Amendment: > no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. You can produce the same bullshit arguments for literally any law in existence because language is inherently ambiguous. If someone starts wiggling into, "well technically it's a bit ambiguous whether we're allowed to mow down peaceful protestors with machine guns," it is incumbent upon all of us to say "no, actually that's not ambiguous." Courts will look to the public attitude to assess these arguments, and the public attitude should be that blatant accounting tricks like the VP switcheroo are incompatible with both the language and intent of the law.
      - sightbroke 1y ago
        Or you could try and read the link I provided: > But winning an election is not the only way a person can become president. And there are hypothetical situations involving presidential succession, Baude adds, that are "not addressed as fully" by the Constitution's text. They reveal ways in which the common understanding of the 22nd Amendment's presidential term limits could be challenged in court. One theory: Trump could become vice president and then president in 2029 > Still, in court, a lawyer could try to argue that being a "natural born" citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident within the U.S. for at least 14 years are the only presidential eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution, says Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law, who proposed in 2004 that Clinton run for vice president. I'm unconvinced that the Supreme Court will look towards public sentiment.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        I did read it, and that argument is bullshit, just like a hypothetical argument that e.g. the government can mow down protestors because they held a mass trial declaring ("satisfied due process") that all people in the street are guilty of a crime and subject to the death penalty. Nothing in the Constitution precludes such an interpretation. There is no way to write words that preclude all such interpretations, that does not make all possible interpretations valid or reasonable. > I'm unconvinced that the Supreme Court will look towards public sentiment. Yet stunningly, SCOTUS decisions overwhelmingly align with cultural attitudes of their time because that is in fact the role of SCOTUS — to adapt interpretations of text to the current cultural moment. That's why it's notable in the few occasions where they conflict. I know originalists and textualists like to act otherwise, but they're liars, and you know this because they do in fact rule against the text of law when the text conflicts with their cultural imperatives.
        sightbroke 1y ago
        Your first argument is hyperbolic. Secondly you may wish to argue the Supreme Court has acted in such a way historically but recent history clearly demonstrates otherwise: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-...
  - 91bananas 1y ago
    I mean the constitution was effectively ruled to be unconstitutional with the presidential immunity case, so what does anything even matter anymore?
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      All the more reason to aggressively nip this in the bud so we can get to work repairing the horrible damage they've done to our country.
Workaccount2 1y ago
Yes, republicans in congress can stop this at anytime, and once people tangibly feel prices increase congressional leaders will get scared. If congress turns heavy blue in 2026, they can rain hell on the mild conservative goals that Trump seems to have taken a nuclear approach to. Congressman do care about their seat, and they do get scared of losing power. Right now Americans are particularly sensitive to price increases as well, with the pandemic inflation still fresh on everyone's mind.
- sightbroke 1y ago
  What is the margin for 2026 changing the Senate majority significantly? I personally am not seeing what influence Congress could push that will hinder the current executive branch even if it wished to.
  - cmrdporcupine 1y ago
    Personally disappointed to see opposition US liberals in the US still fantasizing that the problem of Trump is going to be solved "eventually" in 2026 or in the courts. More protests needed. This is tyranny-lite in action, huge overreach by the executive that I'm pretty sure the hallowed founders -- that people always talk about with reverance down there -- would be horrified by. 18th century revolutionaries would be disappointed to see the way people are rolling over.

Goronmon 1y ago

There is a non-zero chance he have at least one more term.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Non-zero in the sense that there is a non-zero chance of an outright coup. There is absolutely, unambiguously no Constitutional method by which this will ever be true.
- sightbroke 1y ago
  It is unfortunately not as unambiguous as one may like: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-running-for-a-third-term https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-runnin...
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    No, it really is. 22nd Amendment: > 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. 12th Amendment: > no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. You can produce the same bullshit arguments for literally any law in existence because language is inherently ambiguous. If someone starts wiggling into, "well technically it's a bit ambiguous whether we're allowed to mow down peaceful protestors with machine guns," it is incumbent upon all of us to say "no, actually that's not ambiguous." Courts will look to the public attitude to assess these arguments, and the public attitude should be that blatant accounting tricks like the VP switcheroo are incompatible with both the language and intent of the law.
    - sightbroke 1y ago
      Or you could try and read the link I provided: > But winning an election is not the only way a person can become president. And there are hypothetical situations involving presidential succession, Baude adds, that are "not addressed as fully" by the Constitution's text. They reveal ways in which the common understanding of the 22nd Amendment's presidential term limits could be challenged in court. One theory: Trump could become vice president and then president in 2029 > Still, in court, a lawyer could try to argue that being a "natural born" citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident within the U.S. for at least 14 years are the only presidential eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution, says Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law, who proposed in 2004 that Clinton run for vice president. I'm unconvinced that the Supreme Court will look towards public sentiment.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        I did read it, and that argument is bullshit, just like a hypothetical argument that e.g. the government can mow down protestors because they held a mass trial declaring ("satisfied due process") that all people in the street are guilty of a crime and subject to the death penalty. Nothing in the Constitution precludes such an interpretation. There is no way to write words that preclude all such interpretations, that does not make all possible interpretations valid or reasonable. > I'm unconvinced that the Supreme Court will look towards public sentiment. Yet stunningly, SCOTUS decisions overwhelmingly align with cultural attitudes of their time because that is in fact the role of SCOTUS — to adapt interpretations of text to the current cultural moment. That's why it's notable in the few occasions where they conflict. I know originalists and textualists like to act otherwise, but they're liars, and you know this because they do in fact rule against the text of law when the text conflicts with their cultural imperatives.
        sightbroke 1y ago
        Your first argument is hyperbolic. Secondly you may wish to argue the Supreme Court has acted in such a way historically but recent history clearly demonstrates otherwise: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-...
- 91bananas 1y ago
  I mean the constitution was effectively ruled to be unconstitutional with the presidential immunity case, so what does anything even matter anymore?
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    All the more reason to aggressively nip this in the bud so we can get to work repairing the horrible damage they've done to our country.

Workaccount2 1y ago

Yes, republicans in congress can stop this at anytime, and once people tangibly feel prices increase congressional leaders will get scared. If congress turns heavy blue in 2026, they can rain hell on the mild conservative goals that Trump seems to have taken a nuclear approach to. Congressman do care about their seat, and they do get scared of losing power. Right now Americans are particularly sensitive to price increases as well, with the pandemic inflation still fresh on everyone's mind.

sightbroke 1y ago
What is the margin for 2026 changing the Senate majority significantly? I personally am not seeing what influence Congress could push that will hinder the current executive branch even if it wished to.
- cmrdporcupine 1y ago
  Personally disappointed to see opposition US liberals in the US still fantasizing that the problem of Trump is going to be solved "eventually" in 2026 or in the courts. More protests needed. This is tyranny-lite in action, huge overreach by the executive that I'm pretty sure the hallowed founders -- that people always talk about with reverance down there -- would be horrified by. 18th century revolutionaries would be disappointed to see the way people are rolling over.