199
Trump Says He's 'Entitled' to Illegal Third Term as Allies Draft Voter Suppression Decree
(www.commondreams.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
199 points (98.5% liked)
News
37811 readers
613 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
So, is our military going to need to step up to ensure a fair election next year, and also prevent Trump from taking office again? That is, assuming he, A) lives that long, and B) somehow pulls this off. Isn't that why they are required to swear an oath to the Constitution, and not the President? Does that actually hold any water?
Look, if the U.S. Military were going to uphold the Constitution he already wouldn’t be President anymore.
Eh. I mean he is clearly shitting all over norms, blatantly corrupt, most likely treasonous, and robbing the fucking treasury blind, but all of that stuff is Congress's responsibility to hold him accountable and draw lines and they have failed.
I don't know if you can point to any part of the constitution that he has clearly violated. But the two term limit is codified. The supreme clutter doesn't need to weigh in, the stupidest motherfucker in the country can do the math to see it's unconstitutional (they might not care, but they can see it).
If folks want to toss the constitution, great, they just tossed the basis of authority for the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Guess we get to writing a new one.
I hesitate to declare this is the line he won't be allowed to cross, because he's sailed over every other one. But I really think the entire system of government is shot if he does this. We would certainly be a failed state at that point, where right now we are kinda Schrödinger's Failed State. We may already be, but we'll have to measure it post Trump.
I mean he's clearly broken the first amendment more than a few times by ordering the government to pressure organizations over their right to free speech.
Also, constitutional problems with his deportation bullshit. Which he's been ordered not to do, and yet they're still doing it.
You can't point to something he's clearly violated? What? The most obvious and clear example is the emoluments clause, but it's easy to add in the first and fourth amendments. (Preference given to Christianity, and search and seizure without probable cause, as examples.)
Let me clarify my point. Those are all abstract things that require Congress or the Supreme Court to step in and draw lines. We've had in god we trust as the national motto for decades. There is a gray area there that can be argued and low-engagement voters just see it as noise.
But everyone can count to three. Everyone knows you get two terms and no more. Everyone knows you have to win an election to be President. It is unequivocal. Inarguable. So I think it carries weight in a way that those other violations of the constitution have not.
I never meant to create ambiguity around his illegal actions, just draw attention to how this act would be distinct from the rest.
It's not at all unconstitutional for Trump to enjoy a third term as president. All the Constitution says is that he can't be elected a third time. There's nothing that says he cannot run as VP and then succeed into POTUS once Vance steps down.
That's not true. If a vice president assumes the office, that still counts as a term even though he's not elected. I also believe there is a stipulation that no one disqualified from holding the presidency can be VP, though idk what is spelled out and what is just interpretation.
Sounds like you’ve read Amendment 22:
But you definitely haven’t read Amendment 12:
No, the bullshit technicality he’s trying to pull out of his ass is still unconstitutional.
You really think this is bulletproof?
Have Trump run for Speaker. Hell, have him appointed as secretary of agriculture and have the people above resign. Its really not that difficult when your constitution is held together with bubblegum and pinky promises.
There is nothing in the constitution that says he cant enjoy a third term.
Well if we want to really go into constitutional interp, the military has no power to remove a sitting president.
But if elections do not occur a person doesn't continue to be the president, additionally a 3rd term is banned by the constitution.
If Trump were to "cancel" elections, a power he doesn't even have, the law is clear. He would still lose the presidency. It would then pass to the speaker of the house per the constitutional line of succession.
At that point the military would have a choice to make.
Of course these are big ifs, laws only matter if they are followed. And this scenario requires the law to be broken to even occur. Shits bad
The military literally takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Donald Trump is wiping his ass with the Constitution. There couldn’t be anything more Contritutional for the military to do.
I don't remember a single line in the Constitution stating the military has the power to remove a sitting president.
At least the scenario I described was constitutional.
That's the neat part about an oath to the Constitution, you can't break it to save it. That would be outside of that very oath.
Actually, no.
The Constitution is meaningless without force behind the words.
As is being demonstrated EXTREMELY well right now.
The military? Probably not...
But you might get a federal agency already cosplaying as a para-military group to overlook the election and make sure you're voting correctly. 👍
military is for external threats, you don't want them playing cop
Until you do. When shit hits the fan it generally comes down to which side the military sides with.
As an outsider. The big danger appears to be how your country has also armed your police and now customs people as if they're military too. Things could start to get very messy very fast.
Every single person in the military swore an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.
Domestic enemies like Donald Trump pose a much greater threat to our country than any conventional combatant with a gun or missile - the military is already oath-bound to engage him the same way they do any other enemy.
The inaction from them so far doesn't paint a very promising picture regarding their willingness to actually do what's right to protect our country; but we also don't need the entire military to unite against that traitor: we just need a single one of them with the right training to apply through skills.
Servicemen and women: please actually do your job.
you obviously have no idea what "do your job" means here... military are trained to kill, do you really want them to "do their job" in US streets?
Don't conflate 'doing their job' with the misuse of force they're famous for. We need them to do their actual job, not just blindly follow orders into a series of war crimes.
Yes, contingent on those streets being populated by enemies of the US like Donald Trump / members of his regime / ICE.
you seem to be conflating military with police. you want them wantonly murdering Americans in the street? stfu lunatic.
Your maga is showing.
MAGA would love to see military in the streets murdering people, I'm the polar opposite of MAGA.
At best, you're what's called "blue maga" as you're purity-testing your way right into supporting his regime.
I kinda doubt it though, since you're just ignoring what's being said to keep parroting the same strawman shit over and over: either your reading comprehension really is that bad, making you a useful idiot for the Trump regime; or you're deliberately posting in bad faith with the goal to advance the Trump regime in the first place, making you the kind of Nazi that does recognize the evil that's happening, and fucking loves it.
What's your goal here?
wtf is "blue maga". this binary shit of blood in the streets or you're MAGA is insane, not even worth discussing.
my goal? not blood in the streets at a minimum. what is your goal? murder anyone who doesn't have your approved thinking?
why does every discussion on the internet these days feel like talking to a bot or a Russian agent trying to sow chaos?
crawl back in your fucking hole and stop advocating for violence.
Literally described it in my previous post.
You'd be correct if that's what we were discussing. You're arguing against something that was never pitched in the first place - that's called strawman, and is a big part of why your posts reek of MAGA - they love pulling that shit.
Whose blood?
I stated my goal in my first post here, which is to encourage military personnel to act on their oath instead of blindly following the orders of the evil dipshits their oath compels them to slay.
Strawman again. That particular flavor of strawman is also rampant in MAGA posting. Whether or not Nazis - particularly, those Nazis currently in power, and using that power to enact global scale atrocities - are people who are worth preserving isn't the kind of thing that boils down to a difference of opinion any more than a tsunami could be described as just a wave. Technically correct? Sure. Difference in scope? Not even a little bit comparable.
Do you feel that dropping that line makes you less suspicious? Cuz the whole blue MAGA act stands out like a sore thumb.
No. Advocating for the preservation of Nazis is advocating for violence. Calling on people who swore an oath to fight those Nazis to actually do so is justified and overdue. There are no options on the table that don't involve violence; nor is you coming to the defense of the aggressors.