45

Summary

Despite the 22nd Amendment barring a third term (“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”), Trump continues to suggest he could run again, raising the idea at a Black History Month event and with Republican governors.

Legal experts say the Constitution is clear that he cannot run, though some supporters, including Rep. Andy Ogles and Steve Bannon, are pushing for a constitutional amendment or a 2028 campaign.

Meanwhile, Trump has expanded executive authority in his second term, drawing criticism for undermining congressional checks.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Hyphlosion@lemm.ee 39 points 1 week ago

The Constitution barred him from running again after he incited a riot on the capitol. Yet here we are.

Forgive me if my faith in the Constitution is waning a bit.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 1 week ago

One difference is that he, specifically, wasn't convicted of insurrection by the time ballots were being printed up. That's why the Supreme Court could plausibly say that there was no basis for states to remove him from the ballot.

The clause on term limits is clear. It's automatic, and there's no interesting basis to challenge that. The Supreme Court would have to massively overreach to make that work. Will they do that? Maybe, but it's not the same situation.

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 17 points 1 week ago

Yeah well, the Constitution says a lot of things. However, it’s fairly clear a large segment of the American population doesn’t care what the Constitution says as long as it’s their team in power.

[-] SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

Exactly, they’re going to say the courts are just against him, or something, and then kick off.

[-] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

And I would say:

Yes, the courts are against him on that because it’s fucking clear that our founders never wanted a king or authoritarian in charge and two terms is more than enough and already set.

[-] dev_null@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

I have to say, it would be extremely funny if they changed the constitution and then Trump lost to Obama

[-] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

No its so much more fucked than that. It's literally god emperor language.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-third-term-constitutional-amendment-andy-ogles-2025020

The wording of Ogles' amendment proposal suggests that previous consecutive two-term presidents, such as Barack Obama or George W. Bush, would not be allowed to run for a third term.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago

Funnily enough, the same thing happened with Putin in Russia

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

The Dems should call his bluff and propose a constitutional amendment allowing three terms, perhaps under the condition that sitting presidents must win an open primary to be eligible for a second or third nomination.

FDR had three terms, plus a few months of a fourth term.

IMHO, the bigger issue is not having three terms, but the fact that sitting presidents can get the nomination without winning a primary. This practice removes an important opportunity to replace them.

[-] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

The Republican Third Term Project is pushing this hard. They're at CPAC drumming up support. I think the language is only specific to Trump though, so no other past president would be able to run again. It's something like a president that has not served 2 consecutive terms.

Also, Trump doesn't care about the constitution and neither do just about every GOP in office. They may say publicly that he can't do it or whatever, but if it comes down to it, they would vote for it.

[-] Pondis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

To be fair he wasn't supposed to run for a second term as a convicted felon, but he managed that.

I'd like to say I'd be surprised if he could win another election as his popularity plummets, but the US voters have proven themselves to be stupid and/or lazy.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago

Being a convicted felon does not disqualify you from running for president, or from being elected to the office.

Fomenting insurrection does, but that got waved away "because reasons".

[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Because Merrick Garland is a bitch. Also more stuff.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago

Nah, Colorado was handling it appropriately, then SCOTUS stepped in and told a state that they're not allowed to administer elections in their state.

[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago
[-] zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Because given how shameless SCOTUS has been, not sure there's even an alternative reality where they still don't worm themselves around Garland too, regardless of what he did or how fast.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Because Biden appointed a bitch instead of someone who would actually do their goddamn job.

[-] RejZoR@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

As convicted felon you can't run for position of burger flipper at McDonalds, but you can become a president...

I mean the reason why someone shouldn't be barred for office based on a conviction is obvious

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] dojan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I wouldn’t be surprised. He promised an end of elections and voting. This is what his voters wanted.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That, and we have that stupid Electoral College. Oh, and lots and lots of fuckery from the Republican apparatchiks when it comes to running our elections.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

Barred? By whom? Really, when will the states wake up and figure out there is no "adult" in the wings that will enforce norms.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Who's gonna stop him from running for or taking office for a third time? The Democrats? Are they gonna write a strongly worded letter? The Supreme Court? Do they have anyone with guns who will listen to them?

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

He'll be SLaMmeD in that strongly worded letter, they'll pat themselves on the back for a job well done, then run another candidate without a primary.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Of course he'll run and of course he'll win and og course he'll just ignore the laws about it and of course nobody is going to stop him

[-] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I can't see him still being alive by then. He's going to have a stroke or coronary before then.

[-] MisterCurtis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Or some other mysterious 3rd option

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Criminals aren't allowed to run for president either. Here we are.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Of course criminals are allowed to run for president

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

I'd vote for Debs

[-] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee are both eligible for the office of the United States of America (if they were still alive at least).

[-] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

wrong, it's only individual states that prohibit felons from voting or running for office.

[-] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

It says elected. He has no intention of having another election.

[-] Zexks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

He’s gonna run anyways. Mark my words. He can’t leave office or he’s fucked. The constitution is nothing more than toilet paper at this point, if no one is going to stand up for it.

[-] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

He really is sort of pathetic.

It's weird and oddly discouraging. It seems like the individual most responsible for the oncoming collapse of the United States should be some sort of supervillain, but he's really just a desperately insecure and over-compensating wad of hair, bronzer and congealed fat with the emotional maturity of a spoiled three-year-old.

And meanwhile, his wannabe Rasputin sidekick is a desperately insecure and over-compensating middle-aged chuunibyou who's still trying, and pathetically failing, to be the edgiest 13-year-old, and to not think about the fact that everyone who knows him thinks he's an asshole.

As if it's not already bad enough to watch as the US is systematically destroyed, we have to watch as it's systematically destroyed by people who are so pathetic and creepy.

[-] NotLemming@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

For me as an outsider he represents the worst of america- fake, plastic, bloated ego, stupid but unaware, white man complex... He's a poisonous human with no substance. Maybe it would be fitting if he were the last president.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
45 points (100.0% liked)

politics

20722 readers
3084 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS