199
submitted 3 months ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] obvs@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago

Look, if the U.S. Military were going to uphold the Constitution he already wouldn’t be President anymore.

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] oyo@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

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.)

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip -1 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 months ago

the stupidest motherfucker in the country can do the math to see it's unconstitutional

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.

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] obvs@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Sounds like you’ve read Amendment 22:

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. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

But you definitely haven’t read Amendment 12:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

No, the bullshit technicality he’s trying to pull out of his ass is still unconstitutional.

[-] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

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.

[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

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

[-] obvs@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip -1 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] obvs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Actually, no.

The Constitution is meaningless without force behind the words.

As is being demonstrated EXTREMELY well right now.

this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
199 points (98.5% liked)

News

37785 readers
611 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