Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

PoindexterOglethorpe

(26,842 posts)

32. Isn't there an amendment to the Constitution that covers this?

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2024, 10:31 PM

Dec 5

Why on god's green earth is this even remotely being considered? Sort of like some question about Santa Claus, or if the Pope can tell Muslims what to do or believe.

Honestly, doesn't anyone there have any remote understanding of the Constitution? What am I missing here????

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democrats Want Republicans to Confirm Donald Trump Can't Serve Third Term [View all] BumRushDaShow Dec 5 OP

This is playing their game, and Newsweek is amplifying the mistake. This is settled law. Scrivener7 Dec 5 #1

It could be considered "trolling" too BumRushDaShow Dec 5 #2

That's a dangerous line. It makes it a possibility. And we've seen what they can do Scrivener7 Dec 5 #3

Well considering what the SCOTUS has done in the past BumRushDaShow Dec 5 #4

The rule of law is only as good as the institutional will to enforce it. Eugene Dec 5 #5

Yes. So OUR reps shouldn't be putting it into the Zeitgeist that this is a possibility. Scrivener7 Dec 5 #6

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg stated that Roe v. Wade would have been stronger if it had been decided, not on a right to CTyankee Dec 5 #25

Absurd maybe, but they are still trying on multiple fronts. Eugene Dec 5 #26

EXACTLY. Devote time and energy to opposing his policies Raven123 Dec 5 #8

This is his 3rd term bucolic_frolic Dec 5 #7

seriously... and we're all exhausted by his endless BS LymphocyteLover Dec 6 #34

This ongoing "Peaceful transition into chaos" is making me sick! Omnipresent Dec 5 #9

as if we are to believe anything they say. nt Javaman Dec 5 #10

Funny Clouds Passing Dec 5 #11

After January 6 LPBBEAR Dec 5 #12

If Trump can run for a third term, so can Obama. El-Capitan Dec 5 #13

This is so stupid. WHY are they playing into their hands. travelingthrulife Dec 5 #14

Why waste the time? The Amendment is clear sarisataka Dec 5 #15

The 14th Amendment is also pretty damn clear that insurrectionists can't fucking hold office. Karasu Dec 5 #27

Not really Polybius Dec 5 #29

"Who's to say who is or isn't one?" I don't get how it's a subjective term. You're either someone who attempted to Karasu Dec 5 #30

Many people argue that he didn't though Polybius Dec 5 #31

Clinton: Let presidents serve 3 terms Jose Garcia Dec 5 #16

We don't have an English parliamentary system Zorro Dec 5 #18

If Clinton feels strongly about this issue he should GOTV to make the constitutional in2herbs Dec 5 #20

He would have easily won in 2000 though Polybius Dec 6 #33

Funny how Morning Jerk-off asks this question NOW..... AZ8theist Dec 5 #22

Republicans are the ones who were behind the 22nd Amendment in the first place Zorro Dec 5 #17

He'll be dead before his second term ends. milestogo Dec 5 #19

From your lips to Koreshs' ears....... AZ8theist Dec 5 #23

Doesn't the 22nd Amendment specify 10 years max? FakeNoose Dec 5 #21

There is no ambiguity around "non-consecutive presidencies" in the constituion HereForTheParty Dec 5 #24

Asking the question, makes a 3rd Trump term more likely. PufPuf23 Dec 5 #28

Isn't there an amendment to the Constitution that covers this? PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 5 #32