im 100% canadian, I dont live in the US and wondering about your system.

so as i understand your political system, a president can only hold office 2 terms. in Trumps case, he served once already, does that mean he can only serve one more, or is the clock reset and he gets a shot at 8 years?

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 day ago

    Unless you change the rules with the help of the supreme court of which you elected several judges. I mean, Xi and Putin did it, why can’t Trump?

    • redhorsejacket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      By all means, I’d expect him to try, however, this is a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court can’t take back an amendment the way they can strike down laws (I.e. by ruling it unconstitutional for whatever reason), because it IS constitutional by definition.

      Thankfully, the Constitution is also very specific about what it takes to amend it further. 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, or 2/3 of state legislatures must vote to just propose an amendment, and then, to pass the amendment, they need 3/4 of the vote. Because the process is enumerated, there’s no legal ambiguity they can use to shape their ruling the way they want. To remove term limits, you must amend the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, you must meet these (intentionally) high thresholds. If A -> then B.

      So, unless Trump is able to woo half of the sitting Democrats, as well as 100% of the Republicans, we’re safe from the system being used to guillotine itself (instead, the system will spend the next 4 years hitting itself in the face with a bat). Now, if Trump wants to seize power outside of the system, that’s a different ball game, and the relative friendliness of judges and Congress is a moot point.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The Supreme Court can’t take back an amendment the way they can strike down laws (I.e. by ruling it unconstitutional for whatever reason), because it IS constitutional by definition.

        Yeah, but the problem is that the Supreme Court are also the arbiters of the interpretation of the document, and there’s nothing to suggest that they can’t simply come out and say “Oh, it means two consecutive terms”, which is exactly what Putin does in Russia with their term limits - some stooge takes over for a term and then Putin wins in yet another landslide.

        I mean, the 22nd Amendment is very clean, IMO. “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice” is pretty unambiguous, but I really can’t put anything past this corrupt administration. A coup is probably more likely, but if Trump can somehow get the law on his side he won’t need to, so I’m sure he would prefer that route.

      • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Same happened with Hitler. We all know how that turned out. There are humorous similarities, like addiction to amphetamines and not drinking alcohol.

        People who really want to do harm always find ways to bend the rules and get away with it.

      • SimplyTadpole@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Also, given how Trump’s been even more incoherent and irrational in this election compared to 2016’s, I’d be surprised if he’s still grounded enough in reality (or even alive) to seek more terms in 2028 - he’s already in his 80s and doesn’t live a healthy lifestyle; he has supercharged billionaire-only medicine, but there are only so many miracles that medicine can do.

        I guess maybe the Republicans would try to keep him as a front for PR (like a puppet president) while hiding the fact that he’s senile from the population, and governing from the shadows. Which I suppose is barely better than direct rule from Trump himself.