• Kairos
    link
    fedilink
    229 days ago

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

  • @jordanlundM
    link
    209 days 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    Even if they repealed the 22nd Amendment, we don’t allow ex post facto laws, so the repeal wouldn’t apply to him.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.”

    • @randoot
      link
      469 days 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
        139 days ago

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

        • @halcyoncmdr
          link
          English
          309 days 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
              11
              edit-2
              9 days 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
                4
                edit-2
                9 days 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.

        • @BrianTheeBiscuiteer
          link
          18 days ago

          Is it more than 270 electoral votes worth? No? Then the blue states can have their little tantrum while the GOP laughs all the way back to a majority.

      • @BrianTheeBiscuiteer
        link
        58 days ago

        Our repeated mistake is believing a guy that has no history of following rules and norms will suddenly decide to follow them as the most powerful “CEO” on the planet.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      169 days 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
        109 days 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.

    • Em Adespoton
      link
      fedilink
      149 days ago

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

    • @stupidcasey
      link
      129 days ago

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

    • @just_another_person
      link
      109 days ago

      Pray.

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

      • @BrianTheeBiscuiteer
        link
        18 days ago

        Not hard to see when you’re a powermonger that regularly ignores rules.

        “Who’s gonna stop me from doing this? That guy? Let’s replace him. New guy, you gonna stop me? No? We cool then.”

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
      link
      48 days ago

      Ex post facto refers to criminal laws. Nothing to do with administrative processes. The retroactivity or not of such laws is based on a substantive due process analysis.

    • Kairos
      link
      fedilink
      49 days ago

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

  • @CharlesDarwin
    link
    English
    78 days ago

    It’s cute that donvict thinks he’ll be in good enough health to run.

    • @mojofrododojo
      link
      English
      38 days ago

      frankly surprised he hasn’t already had a coronary considering his health and diet.