4 ms·

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

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-...
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        The more hyperbolic the example, the easier it should be to demonstrate why the language of the Constitution precludes it. Yet you cannot, because that's not how language works, per my point. If I start pushing for this interpretation of the Constitution, the civic, intellectual, and honest reaction is not to say, "hmm, actually it is pretty ambiguous!" It's to say: "that obviously is not allowed and would be tantamount to a coup." Everyone knows Presidential terms are meant to be limited to two. Everyone knows going for a third term would be an accounting trick. They know it, you know it, I know it. Your selection of one example out of the 47 cases SCOTUS decided that year (+ countless cases they didn't grant cert to) is evidence of my point, not yours. How many of the other 46 cases can you name? How many of the other 81 cases between then and now? I'll guess you could name fewer than 4 of them, ergo, as I said: "That's why it's notable in the few occasions where they conflict."

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-...
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      The more hyperbolic the example, the easier it should be to demonstrate why the language of the Constitution precludes it. Yet you cannot, because that's not how language works, per my point. If I start pushing for this interpretation of the Constitution, the civic, intellectual, and honest reaction is not to say, "hmm, actually it is pretty ambiguous!" It's to say: "that obviously is not allowed and would be tantamount to a coup." Everyone knows Presidential terms are meant to be limited to two. Everyone knows going for a third term would be an accounting trick. They know it, you know it, I know it. Your selection of one example out of the 47 cases SCOTUS decided that year (+ countless cases they didn't grant cert to) is evidence of my point, not yours. How many of the other 46 cases can you name? How many of the other 81 cases between then and now? I'll guess you could name fewer than 4 of them, ergo, as I said: "That's why it's notable in the few occasions where they conflict."