• Kairos
    link
    fedilink
    1618 hours ago

    I hope he’s dead and/or suffering by that time.

  • @jordanlundM
    link
    1921 hours ago

    Nope.

    Even if they repealed the 22nd Amendment, we don’t allow ex post facto laws, so the repeal wouldn’t apply to him.

    United States Constitution
    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
    “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

    Article 1, Section 10
    “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

    In case you’re wondering, “Bill of Attainder”:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

    “an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and providing for a punishment, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.”

    • Kairos
      link
      fedilink
      34 hours ago

      Any amendment would be on the same level, and therefore its down to what’s more specific.

    • @randoot
      link
      4120 hours ago

      Who’s going to enforce it? The House? The Senate? The supreme Court?

      The law is just pieces of paper if the people who are supposed to enforce it don’t want to.

      • @mipadaitu
        link
        English
        1320 hours ago

        The states control the elections, enough of them could literally just refuse to put him on the ballot.

        • @halcyoncmdr
          link
          English
          2719 hours ago

          The Supreme Court already told them they can’t do that to get Trump on this ballot after he violated the 14th Amendment with his failed insurrection attempt last time. And they went with it. Why would they do this any differently?

            • @NJSpradlin
              link
              9
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              What prevented the states from not listing the insurrectionist this last time?

              Also, what state would stand up to the fascist that* they elected?

              Also, when you’re the weak one in the group of fascists, a state* AG, Governor, or guy running the election, how long do you think you’d live or remain employed beyond you deciding to rock the boat here?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                9 hours ago

                The Democrats never wanted him off the ballot, half the party, and all the powerful members, committed to the sloganeering ‘beat him at the ballot box’ whenever the 14th was discussed They wanted to run against Trump again, and why not, record fundraising evry time they do, even when they lose.

    • @stupidcasey
      link
      1316 hours ago

      That’s a good law, I wonder how long until they change it.

    • Em Adespoton
      link
      fedilink
      1318 hours ago

      If he runs again anyway, what are you going to do? Sue the POTUS in federal court?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1619 hours ago

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

      Changes to the law are only considered ex post facto laws in the United States when they bring about a criminal punishment - So prosecutors couldn’t charge Trump if the 22nd amendment was changed to only allow 1 term, for example. So if the 22nd amendment was altered to allow for more terms, it would not be considered an Ex post facto law

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull

      IANAL, but this is what I was taught in high school

      • @mkwt
        link
        819 hours ago

        Also within this very hypothetical scenario, the act of seeking a third term is after the hypothetical amendment, so there is no ex post facto in any case.

    • @just_another_person
      link
      1020 hours ago

      Pray.

      These people seem to be good at finding all the cracks in the system like roaches.