Thanks for this chilling, threat-packed horror movie. Glad I bought a ticket.
And, like all horror movies, it is ultimately so enjoyable because it can't happen in real life. The only assumption here that fails to get an adequate airing out (because it would spoil the whole movie) is that mere "possibility" of a friendly Supreme Court.
Fortunately for reality, they have shown themselves, time and again, to be serious and very thoughtful guardians of the Constitution, and particularly with respect to the role of the other two branches -- Particularly the Executive Branch. They are willing to give the Executive all the reasonable, and even reasonable-ish leeway the structure of our government requires. But no more.
They also know that any leeway they give Trump will be used by subsequent presidents. And there's the rub. There is no way on earth they could take any of these wild-hair ideas (or others I expect they might cook up) seriously. They are the antithesis of the entire foundation of this country and its governance.
There -- on the steps of the Supreme Court -- is where the rubber meets the road. Yes, there is the possibility that Trump might refuse to abide by a Supreme Court decision. And it may not be on this question, since there are several other strong options bubbling through the courts right now. He clearly wants to test the Executive's limits, and I expect we'll get some kind of a showdown. But I'm betting on the court, and the people of this country who have growing concerns about Trump.
Personally, I don't like indulging Trump in these manufactured fantasies, since that's what he lives for. I can't fault people for giving in to him, though. He's just that enticing to some people. But then, so are all horror movies.
No, he is playing you leftist and media dopes like a cheap fiddle.
He is putting forth that idea to set your hair on fire. To focus on that and not the reforms being made. To take the heat off his cabinet and direct it at him. To create the myth of eight more years of Trump so THAT becomes the focus of the left and the corporatist oligarchy to defeat, rather than his actions and policies over the first four years. It also takes focus off of Vance... the likely new POTUS elected in 2028.
It does not matter in the least if he is serious or not. Sure he would if actually does become possible, but the effort-- in light of your argument-- would be gargantuan. More important, as reported in the NYT today, is the extraordinary disruptive power even suggesting this has. His primary concern now is he wants to stave off lame duck status as long as possible. I am sure he would like to claim the entire ocean floor as the Floor of America too. After all there really are no Laws of the Sea. Only weak unenforceable treaties.
Heavens to Betsy! Sam, honestly. One is just lost for words having read this "resistance" article, which is so absurd that one is almost left speechless. Anything that is "comfort food" for the leftist, elites seems to flow from some articles on this website. You guys are the intelligentsia and maybe you are just having a bad day, or Trump has been shown to be right for once.... he's just playing "rope a dope" so that he will tire out you elite academics with your constant flow of unfounded critisms, before he knocks you out.
The Putinish end-run -- run for vice-president with a dummy candidate at the top of the ticket who promptly resigns upon taking office -- is plausibly constitutional on a plain text reading and, I agree with the law professor quoted, very much the most likely path to achieve this result.
It does not so clearly run into the 12th Amendment as the author suggests, because that amendment merely says that you can't run for vice president if you would be ineligible "to the office" of president, say, if you were too young or not a natural born citizen or disqualified upon impeachment and removal. But the 22nd Amendment doesn't say that if you've been twice elected before, one is ineligible "to the office." It says you may not be "elected" to the office a third time. In this scenario, Trump would not have been "elected" to the office of president a third time, at least not formally so.
The 22nd Amendment might have said that nobody twice elected is eligible to "hold" the office (as the 14th Amendment does in relation to insurrectionists). Or it might have echoed the 12th Amendment language that means the same thing -- nobody twice elected is eligible "to the office." But it didn't use that language. It's a prohibition against the electors electing him president, and thus functionally a prohibition against running as a candidate for president.
The best argument against this gambit isn't the 12th Amendment in my view but rather that it's an obvious end-run, requiring only the participation of a willing dummy to circumvent and render meaningless the 22nd Amendment. In other words, in this scenario, Trump would actually, when you consider the reality of it, be running to be elected president a third time. Those are the plain intentions of everyone involved. One might imagine a scenario where a president actually wants an elder statesman twice elected president before to serve as vice president but who had no intention of stepping down. If that were the situation, that might not violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment, but here would be an obvious scheme to do indirectly what one may not do directly. To prevent such obvious schemes, and without the ability to look into the hearts of the people involved in advance and trust their attestations of future intent, state courts first and ultimately the Supreme Court may fairly disallow the twice-elected president from running for vice-president too.
UPDATE: I recently heard a podcast, the excellent Amarica's Constitution, featuring the eminent Yale constitutional scholar Akhil Amar (who describes himself as both an originalist and a liberal) refute my point about the 12th Amendment. He agrees that the simple text to a modern reader leaves open the interpretation I offer -- that appeal to the 12th Amendment is circular because it only excludes from the vice presidency those "ineligible" to the office of president, which is the whole question, and the 22nd Amendment only excludes election to the office, not "holding" the office. His response is that we should read "ineligible," consistent he says with Latin roots, to include "unelectable." The 12th Amendment so interpreted would then mean in this context, no person is eligible to the office of vice president who is *unelectable* to the office of president, which would plainly include those who are term limited under the 22nd Amendment as well as the other constitutional requirements. This strikes me as a more tidy way out of this loophole than the one I offered, where my points about an obvious end-run would buttress a fair textual reading rather than replace it.
Clearly the regime has a penchant for invoking fake emergencies, be it to justify deporting foreigners to a concentration camp in El Salvador or to impose tariffs on the USA’s former allies. Just as clearly, the pushback is limited to non-existent and there’s an army of vociferous regime supporters out there ready to attack the regime’s opponents. The final word on this story is that Trump keeps his options open and that we just don’t know what he is going to do, only that he can do what he wants.
Trump is just too old to run for reelection (even if the Constitution allowed it). He wants to retire. People are taking this way to seriously. Someone points out below "His primary concern now is he wants to stave off lame duck status as long as possible." That is correct.
Thanks for this chilling, threat-packed horror movie. Glad I bought a ticket.
And, like all horror movies, it is ultimately so enjoyable because it can't happen in real life. The only assumption here that fails to get an adequate airing out (because it would spoil the whole movie) is that mere "possibility" of a friendly Supreme Court.
Fortunately for reality, they have shown themselves, time and again, to be serious and very thoughtful guardians of the Constitution, and particularly with respect to the role of the other two branches -- Particularly the Executive Branch. They are willing to give the Executive all the reasonable, and even reasonable-ish leeway the structure of our government requires. But no more.
They also know that any leeway they give Trump will be used by subsequent presidents. And there's the rub. There is no way on earth they could take any of these wild-hair ideas (or others I expect they might cook up) seriously. They are the antithesis of the entire foundation of this country and its governance.
There -- on the steps of the Supreme Court -- is where the rubber meets the road. Yes, there is the possibility that Trump might refuse to abide by a Supreme Court decision. And it may not be on this question, since there are several other strong options bubbling through the courts right now. He clearly wants to test the Executive's limits, and I expect we'll get some kind of a showdown. But I'm betting on the court, and the people of this country who have growing concerns about Trump.
Personally, I don't like indulging Trump in these manufactured fantasies, since that's what he lives for. I can't fault people for giving in to him, though. He's just that enticing to some people. But then, so are all horror movies.
No, he is playing you leftist and media dopes like a cheap fiddle.
He is putting forth that idea to set your hair on fire. To focus on that and not the reforms being made. To take the heat off his cabinet and direct it at him. To create the myth of eight more years of Trump so THAT becomes the focus of the left and the corporatist oligarchy to defeat, rather than his actions and policies over the first four years. It also takes focus off of Vance... the likely new POTUS elected in 2028.
It does not matter in the least if he is serious or not. Sure he would if actually does become possible, but the effort-- in light of your argument-- would be gargantuan. More important, as reported in the NYT today, is the extraordinary disruptive power even suggesting this has. His primary concern now is he wants to stave off lame duck status as long as possible. I am sure he would like to claim the entire ocean floor as the Floor of America too. After all there really are no Laws of the Sea. Only weak unenforceable treaties.
Heavens to Betsy! Sam, honestly. One is just lost for words having read this "resistance" article, which is so absurd that one is almost left speechless. Anything that is "comfort food" for the leftist, elites seems to flow from some articles on this website. You guys are the intelligentsia and maybe you are just having a bad day, or Trump has been shown to be right for once.... he's just playing "rope a dope" so that he will tire out you elite academics with your constant flow of unfounded critisms, before he knocks you out.
The Putinish end-run -- run for vice-president with a dummy candidate at the top of the ticket who promptly resigns upon taking office -- is plausibly constitutional on a plain text reading and, I agree with the law professor quoted, very much the most likely path to achieve this result.
It does not so clearly run into the 12th Amendment as the author suggests, because that amendment merely says that you can't run for vice president if you would be ineligible "to the office" of president, say, if you were too young or not a natural born citizen or disqualified upon impeachment and removal. But the 22nd Amendment doesn't say that if you've been twice elected before, one is ineligible "to the office." It says you may not be "elected" to the office a third time. In this scenario, Trump would not have been "elected" to the office of president a third time, at least not formally so.
The 22nd Amendment might have said that nobody twice elected is eligible to "hold" the office (as the 14th Amendment does in relation to insurrectionists). Or it might have echoed the 12th Amendment language that means the same thing -- nobody twice elected is eligible "to the office." But it didn't use that language. It's a prohibition against the electors electing him president, and thus functionally a prohibition against running as a candidate for president.
The best argument against this gambit isn't the 12th Amendment in my view but rather that it's an obvious end-run, requiring only the participation of a willing dummy to circumvent and render meaningless the 22nd Amendment. In other words, in this scenario, Trump would actually, when you consider the reality of it, be running to be elected president a third time. Those are the plain intentions of everyone involved. One might imagine a scenario where a president actually wants an elder statesman twice elected president before to serve as vice president but who had no intention of stepping down. If that were the situation, that might not violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment, but here would be an obvious scheme to do indirectly what one may not do directly. To prevent such obvious schemes, and without the ability to look into the hearts of the people involved in advance and trust their attestations of future intent, state courts first and ultimately the Supreme Court may fairly disallow the twice-elected president from running for vice-president too.
UPDATE: I recently heard a podcast, the excellent Amarica's Constitution, featuring the eminent Yale constitutional scholar Akhil Amar (who describes himself as both an originalist and a liberal) refute my point about the 12th Amendment. He agrees that the simple text to a modern reader leaves open the interpretation I offer -- that appeal to the 12th Amendment is circular because it only excludes from the vice presidency those "ineligible" to the office of president, which is the whole question, and the 22nd Amendment only excludes election to the office, not "holding" the office. His response is that we should read "ineligible," consistent he says with Latin roots, to include "unelectable." The 12th Amendment so interpreted would then mean in this context, no person is eligible to the office of vice president who is *unelectable* to the office of president, which would plainly include those who are term limited under the 22nd Amendment as well as the other constitutional requirements. This strikes me as a more tidy way out of this loophole than the one I offered, where my points about an obvious end-run would buttress a fair textual reading rather than replace it.
If Trump wants to die in office, it’s already become clear there are many Americans willing to help him do so, as soon as possible.
Clearly the regime has a penchant for invoking fake emergencies, be it to justify deporting foreigners to a concentration camp in El Salvador or to impose tariffs on the USA’s former allies. Just as clearly, the pushback is limited to non-existent and there’s an army of vociferous regime supporters out there ready to attack the regime’s opponents. The final word on this story is that Trump keeps his options open and that we just don’t know what he is going to do, only that he can do what he wants.
Trump is just too old to run for reelection (even if the Constitution allowed it). He wants to retire. People are taking this way to seriously. Someone points out below "His primary concern now is he wants to stave off lame duck status as long as possible." That is correct.