Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/05/2025 3:29:09 PM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“No, you can’t. First, will never happen.”
An Einstein here, I see.
Elected, no. Appointed?
-PJ
But being elected more than twice is not one of them.
Start with "being elected". On who or what does this prohibition act?
There are no Presidential elections in the Constitution. The President is appointed (pro forma) by te State Legislatures, indirectly, through their power to appoint 535 Electors. In 1960, the Constitution was amended (unwisely) to give Congress 3 electors.
I suppose that a prohibition on "being elected" means that State Legislatures may not appoint Electors whom, it is believed, might vote for the "wrong" person.
As far as "running", "being nominated", "winning a state", and all the other folderol, none of that is in the Constitution, so it would be perfectly all right for Donald Trumo to "run" and even to "win" a popular vote majority in the 50 separate State preference polls that guide the Legislatures in apointing their Electors.
Now suppose 270 Electors, when they meet on the third Monday in December cast secret ballots for Donald Trump.
Does Amendment XXII prohibit the President of the Senate from counting those votes? Come noon on January 20, does it prohibit any Federal official authorized to administer oaths from swearing him in?
Amendment XXII absolutely does not say he is ineligible to the office, nor does it say he cannot serve. It also does not define "beng elected".
So, lots of questions.
Trump isn’t going to run again and amending the constitution to allow more than two terms is extremely unlikely.
I was answering a troll.
So you believe 38 states will ratify it? Okay genius.
I could go for Vance/Rubio.
HAH!
That thread was posted by none other than the kookiest NBC nut here at FR! (CDR Kerchner)
I told you upthread not to listen to NBC kooks.
Yeah, but Trump's been elected three times.
Here’s the loophole, for those who are not aware of it. The 22nd Amendment precludes Trump from RUNNING for President a third time. It does not prevent him from serving a third term. It also doesn’t prevent him from running to be Vice President and his running mate resigning from office after being sworn in (which would cause Trump to replace him). Some may be uncomfortable with it, but there it is. A strict literal reading of the amendment does not preclude the above scenario.
IMO, for what it’s worth, whether or not Trump tries to exploit this loophole or not, he should at the very least use it as leverage to force Congress to approve a congressional term limits amendment. His decision to not try to exploit the loophole should be conditional on Congress approving an amendment that both, removes the loophole by making the language clearer, and also institutes congressional term limits.
If Trump gives up the opportunity to serve a third term then Congress and all the Democrat pearl clutchers in it should give up their ability to run for reelection an unlimited number of times.
Gosh, looking at the past few days, that person barely posts about anything else...
Va ce should run as pres w DT as VP. aft he wins he should resign and voila DT is pres again. By the time dems take it to court and win it will be over.
You beat me to it.
We should all lobby for a Trump permanent term. Besides, it would make democrat’s head’s explode, you know, a twofer.
Who?
nickcarraway or CDR Kerchner?
Or both?
Kerchner. (Nick posts about all sorts of stuff.)
Where does the word “consecutive” appear in the Amendment??
It says “twice”, which Trump has achieved. As much as I love Trump, I would not want him serving another 4 years. He’ll be too old, and frankly, I have noticed that the job is beginning to wear him down. Regardless, the R’s have a pretty good bench:
Vance
Desantis
Cruz
Rubio
and some possible sleepers
Kerchner has had FReepers explain how wrong he is for years.
He never listens.
All of his children are eligible. Enough of this nonsense. Obama was deemed eligible, Harris was deemed eligible and Ted Cruz was deemed eligible.
You’re clueless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.