698
Why plans are already in motion for a Trump third term – no matter what the law says
(www.independent.co.uk)
Rage bait.
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
698 points (98.5% liked)
News
28354 readers
4643 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Conservative don't like bypassing term limit. Conservative subreddit are already not happy. So yep it's matter of time some maga nut bag will revolt against him.
One already tried to shoot him.
Last I checked werent the mods going full gestapo and banning anyone who questioned trump ? That sub really is a shithole.
It all depends on how they spin it
I hope the republicans have better aim this time.
Dont go saying stuff like this on reddit or else the sensitive ass chud admins will ban you
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes, but if Trump refuses to leave office then he will need some serious guards. My understanding of the Constitution is that he becomes a domestic threat at that point and "fighting him" is technically legal ... and required by anyone that took an oath to defend the Constitution.
Technically he's barred from office per the 14th amendment.
Technically is great until it's ignored.
The people who wrote the 14th amendmend fucked up. They did not specify how the disqualification clause is supposed to be invoked.
I mean, how are we suppose to invoke that?
States? If so, red states could just ban democrats by abusing the disqualification clause.
Conviction in courts? Well, trump never got convicted for treason/sedition. States convictionss of fraud isn't disqualifying.
Simple Majority in congress? Well, again, a unified congress can just use it to disqualify the other party.
Supermajority? Well, that would never happen.
Supreme court? Well... look at the composition of the court
So... yea... somebody fucked up.
Blame the authors of the 14th amendment.
I'm pretty sure the Founders were under the impression that we'd rewrite the Constitution periodically when we discovered loopholes or other new problems they didn't foresee.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Ideally the courts would rule on it and it would be up to congress with a supermajority to reverse it.
To be clear, a court did rule that he committed treason and was barred from running. SCOTUS did not say they were wrong, they only stated that they (the fucking courts) did not have the power to APPLY THE CONSTITUTION.
So yeah. It would be up to the courts to apply the constitution and SCOTUS would have the final word. I'm not sure why it would be any different from any other ammendment.
As dispicable as the court is, I agree with their decision.
If a Colorado court can decide to remove a candidate, then all the republicans need to do is get a majority in the courts of swing states and they would forever have the presidency.
Ideally, it should be completely overhauled SCOTUS with something like 15 seats, and every year, a seat expires, on staggered terms, with each justice serving 15 years.
Since a president can only serve a maximum of 8 years*, they could at most have 8 of 15 justices. Something as serious as disqualifying a candidate for federal office should require 2/3 of the SCOTUS's total membership, so at least 10 of the 15 seats on SCOTUS.
A president serving 4 years could at best fill 4 of 15 seats, so even a corrupt president still leaves 11/15 uncorrupted judges.
Also congress has to approve the judges (ideally both houses, by simple majority)
And for intra-term vacancies, they should be filled by 2/3 supermajority, but if bipartisanship is impossible, they'll just have to wait out the seat to expire.
Maybe I should design the political system. 🤔 I've been doing a lot of worldbuilding stuff for a novel I want to write.
ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed for senate! Hmm, I think we're gonna need you a new name, bud.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
"I'm sure THIS will be the time he faces consequences for blatantly regarding both law and custom! Institutional inertia will protect us now for sure!" say a bunch of ignorant shitlibs for the 1,293,762nd time.
I first took that oath 20 years ago. If orange idiot refuses to leave, I will be exercising my constitutional legal actions.
"A Riot is the Language of the Unheard"
-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
25 years ago here. I guess we get to see if youth and zeal can beat experience and underhanded tactics :)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
It hasn’t even been 2 months calm down. Whats the over under on him living that long
load more comments
(2 replies)
You mean The Third Reich ?
Remember: The Nazis never officially abolished the democratic Weimar constitution. They just hollowed it out until it was completely ineffectual
The US has a more rigid constitution. If he gets third term, its a clear violation. A clear indicator that democracy is officially over.
Won't matter in the US, but at least its easier to get political asylum in an EU country.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Just remember, if his new administration has proven anything, it is that the difference between legal and illegal in the American political system is mostly down to everyone being willing to go along with that law. There is very little actual teeth behind a lot of it at the high up federal level.
So it might be unconstitutional for him to run again, but who is actually going stop him? He has more guns and more sycophants than the court system.
Only applies to rich people and cops. For the rest of us, we have to follow the law.