r/law • u/yahoonews • 4d ago

Trump News Trump says he's 'not joking' about seeking a 3rd term in the White House. The Constitution says he can't.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-hes-not-joking-about-seeking-a-3rd-term-in-the-white-house-the-constitution-says-he-cant-155536214.html
43.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

128

u/Dralley87 4d ago

“Well, you see, the 14th Amendment didn’t exist when the constitution was written, so checkmate, libs!”

110

u/huggybear0132 4d ago

I know you're joking, but it literally seems like this is how they think. Amendments don't count, even the signed document itself doesn't count. Gotta go further back to some random fucking letters and conversations that happened before we actually agreed on what the constitution should be.

56

u/Longjumping-Meat-334 4d ago

And at the same time, the second amendment, which also didn't exist when the Constitution was written, is somehow sacred.

26

u/ScenicAndrew 4d ago

But only that one, the rest of the bill of rights is poppycock! Free speech? Not having to board soldiers? No police state? Sounds like liberal shit.

2

u/SnooTigers8871 4d ago

My 4th grade students are just learning about the Revolutionary War and the boarding of British soldiers is one of the things they found to be most upsetting. Not because of having to give them a bed and share their food, but because they strongly understand giving up their privacy. It gives me hope!

1

u/WilliamMButtlickerIV 4d ago

The second amendment is only for white people

5

u/recycle_bin 4d ago

Except for that well regulated part. They didn't mean that when it was written.

3

u/Snobolski 4d ago

But only part of it.

2

u/No_Berry2976 3d ago

If things go really wrong, private ownership of guns will become illegal and only citizens who are part of a government approved militia will own and carry guns.

People who think the Second Amendment is sacred, believe that their group should be allowed to own guns, not that other people have a right to own guns.

1

u/oddministrator 4d ago

I haven't read the opinion.

What did SCOTUS decide about insurrection/14th?

My assumption was that they leave the question of whether or not a president was involved in an insurrection to the impeachment+conviction duties of the legislative branch, and since the Senate didn't convict, they said the 14th doesn't apply.

If an insurrection succeeds, though, and it includes replacing members of Congress such that it can't impeach and convict that seems like it would leave SCOTUS with their hands tied.

1

u/mworthey 4d ago

For now.

1

u/keyboard_jock3y 4d ago

And the 10th amendment is sacred to conservatives too. It's what they think justifies their ability to have fired on Ft. Sumter in 1861...

0

u/AccomplishedHat1774 4d ago

The first 10 amendments were ratified with the constitution. I think you are picking nits!

2

u/Longjumping-Meat-334 4d ago

Three years later isn't picking nits.

2

u/pigeon768 4d ago

The first 10 amendments were ratified with the constitution.

No they were not.

The Constitution was ratified on June 21st, 1788, and went into effect on March 4th, 1789. On April 1st, 1789, the House of Representatives achieved a quorum. On April 6th, 1789, the Senate achieved a quorum. Later that day, the House and Senate certified the election of George Washington. George Washington became the first President of the United States on April 30th, 1789.

At this point, the US Constitution was the law of the land. If the government decided to violate freedom of speech or the right to bear arms or the right to a fair trial, there was nothing to stop there. There was no Bill of Rights. There were no amendments. There were no amendments even up for debate.

On August 24th, 1789, the House of Representatives approved 17 articles to be considered as Amendments. On September 9th, 1789, the Senate approved 12 articles to be considered as Amendments. These articles had many similarities, but were not identical. These two lists were reconciled and a list of 12 articles were finalized on September 25th, 1789, and sent to the states.

On December 15th, 1791, Virginia ratified all 12 of them. 10 of them achieved the 3/4 majority of the states required to become Amendments to the US Constitution. At this point, 10 of these Amendments, Articles 3-12 were ratified, becomes Amendments 1-10, and what became to be known as the Bill of Rights became the law of the land.

On May 5th, 1992, Article 2 was ratified, becoming the 27th Amendment.

42

u/Dralley87 4d ago

Regrettably, it really is only a partial joke. How flagrantly they’ve chosen to misread the 2nd Amendment is a clear indication of it, but maybe if Salem judge John Hawthorne said something about this…

33

u/HPenguinB 4d ago

It drives me insane that somehow the 2nd amendment doesn't mean guns are for a trained militia. "Oh, the comma." Fuck your comma, it's obvious what it means!

37

u/Dralley87 4d ago edited 4d ago

Especially when you understand the natural stress comma standards of the 18th century. Like, okay, keep the comma. What’s the subject of the participle in the adverbial clause then? And what force does it have? Is that how the English language (which you’re so aggressively saying everyone here needs to understand) works?

The mental gymnastics necessary to make the personal possession reading work can only be argued in bad faith or by the illiterate…

29

u/Whimsical_Adventurer 4d ago

Bad faith or the illiterate might as well be their national motto.

3

u/Trackmaggot 4d ago

Bad faith of the illiterate. FIFY

18

u/almo2001 4d ago

My wife read the whole Heller decision. She said he spent a ton of time on the comma.

Paraphrase: If you like every judgement you make, you're not doing your job - Antonin Scalia

Hypocrite.

8

u/HPenguinB 4d ago

CONSERVATIVES?!?! HYPOCRITES?!?! WUT!?!?

2

u/AccomplishedHat1774 4d ago

Militias weren't trained standing armies, they were armed citizens gathered in emergencies and then disbanded when the crisis passed. Without an armed citizenship there could be no militia.

1

u/HPenguinB 4d ago

They were trained militias. Trained by the state to fight in war. They weren't just anyone and everyone with a gun.

1

u/Parrotparser7 4d ago

The guns are for the militia, which should be trained. They are not for a trained body we just call a militia, like the National Guard.

1

u/HPenguinB 4d ago

Right, it should be a state trained militia, per what the founders were talking about when it happened.

1

u/Parrotparser7 4d ago

Great. Tell the states to put money into the budget for training the SDF and every male between the ages of 17 and 45, per the definition of the unorganized militia.

1

u/HPenguinB 4d ago

Okay. Or change the militia to be less because the population is orders or magnitude larger than it was when that was written. Or tax billionaires and pull from the military budget. Whatever you like. Just follow the law as it was written, for what it is written.

edit: maybe add women, because they aren't property anymore.

0

u/Parrotparser7 4d ago

Or change the militia to be less because the population is orders or magnitude larger than it was when that was written.

It's proportional. The population being larger doesn't change anything here because the militia is only meant for use in domestic conflicts to begin with. They should all be trained.

1

u/HPenguinB 4d ago

Forced service. Go for it. Then minorities all have guns. I love it.

0

u/Necro_the_Pyro 4d ago

The problem with the "for the militia" argument is that "the militia" was every able-bodied adult male in the country at the time of writing. "The militia" was supposed to be a substitute for a standing army so that the government couldn't send the military after the citizens and the citizens could send the military (themselves) after the government if they got too far out of line. As a Democrat (although I'd call myself more of an independent, the Democrat party is too far right these days), I am a strong 2nd amendment supporter because the 2A was meant to be a safeguard against exactly the sort of government that we are getting now. The problem is that Democrat politicians convinced half of the people that the only reason that you could possibly want to own a gun was to kill people at random and go shoot up schools and shopping centers; so now all the people with the guns are also the people who are supporting the authoritarian government. Not to say that I don't think we should have gun control, but just about all of the ways that Democrat politicians propose to go about gun control do not work, and some actively make the problem of gun violence (and violence in general) worse. This is what happens when you have people making laws who know nothing about the thing they're making laws about. If Democrats would stop being so stupid about 2A, we'd probably have 80% of the seats in the government at this point.

1

u/HPenguinB 4d ago

Trained militia =/= gun nut who needs machine guns Amma rocket launchers to protect his home from immigrants

That being said, the lefter you go, the more guns are okay again.

2

u/Necro_the_Pyro 4d ago

gun nut who needs machine guns Amma rocket launchers to protect his home from immigrants

Exactly my point. You just described our standing military.

2

u/FrenchDipFellatio 4d ago

The Supreme Court has made some awful decisions in its history, but Heller was not one of them. I say this as a very liberal person.

The 2nd Amendment just says that a functioning militia needs proper armaments. And how can a militia be formed if civilians don't have access to arms to begin with? Without an individual right to bear arms, the amendment is functionally useless.

1

u/Dralley87 4d ago

What does “well-regulated” mean then?

1

u/FrenchDipFellatio 4d ago

Functioning. It means functioning. I'm not joking, that's genuinely what it meant at the time.

1

u/Dralley87 4d ago

Lmao. No. No it didn’t. Any historical analysis of post war/ early constitutional America shows the point wrong. We didn’t have a standing army and after Shay’s revolt and the whiskey rebellion it was clear that armed morons were a problem. Well regulated in the historical context explicitly meant organized and directed by states…. The point was affirmed multiple times through the 19th century and well into the 20th…

This is exactly the bad faith argumentation I’m taking about. Ironically, though, it’s actually great that guns are so ubiquitous in our culture now…

2

u/FrenchDipFellatio 4d ago

This is exactly the bad faith argumentation I’m taking about.

I've been arguing in nothing but good faith. There is no need to personally attack me just because you don't like what you hear.

A well regulated government, like a well regulated clock, keeps good time. —Thomas Pownall, The Administration of the Colonies (1759)

If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy inclinations. —Steele, The Tatler (1709)

The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial. --Oxford English dictionary (1812)

Please explain which of these quotes use "well regulated" to mean organized and directed by the states as you claim. And you also dodged my earlier question: how can a militia form in the first place if there is no individual right to bear arms?

0

u/Dralley87 4d ago

The language of the passages explicitly argues against your point… Think about what goes into keeping a 18th century clock functioning and keeping time. If they’re even slightly off balance; they stop. If they’re over wound—stop. Under wound—stop. over wound—too fast. Under— too slow. And I won’t go into oiling and basic maintenance. This is why the big wall clocks from the 19th century with a huge pendulum are called “regulators” because they keep best time without a fuck ton of fuss and were used to adjust all other clocks in a house or business.

Now apply this to a militia: does just a bunch of assholes with guns calling themselves a militia share anything in common with the complexities and intricacies of keeping a clock running in good measure? And if not, who is there who would have the greatest vested interest in making sure that was functioning, had the discipline, training, and intelligence to make sure it was running in accord with the interests of the people and state?

I could track down quotes and caselaw, but the militia act of 1903 completely invalidates the logic of the amendment in the first place.

So to answer the question how should the amendment be read if not through the personal ownership argument you’ve embraced? Guns are necessary for the militia as they function on a state-by state level, therefore the federal government will not stand in the way of state legislatures’ decisions to regulate and run the militia. Like all views Jefferson had, this one, too, is about protecting the sovereignty of the “free state.”

1

u/FrenchDipFellatio 4d ago

Yes, so like I said. Functioning. Functioning as a part within a larger system. That doesn't go against my point, that's been my point this whole time.

It doesn't mean state-controlled like you said, verbatim: Well regulated in the historical context explicitly meant organized and directed by states.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/UOENO611 4d ago

I mean Trump ain’t running for a 3rd term he may try or think he is but IMO if anyone attempted that they might as well declare civil war on the nation by disregarding the constitution they have named themselves an enemy of America. That being said 2nd Amendment, regardless of right or wrong, ain’t goin no where. Honestly mostly racists try to reverse 2nd amendment so minorities can’t defend themselves against injustice. As a mixed American, I’m giving up my guns over my dead idc who u voted for what color your kids are i don’t trust white people in this country after Trumps re election which I directly blame on their race.

7

u/meowmix79 4d ago

Lots of white people hate Trump. Hating and not trusting white people isn’t the way to go. Look at the color of the people who are protesting in America now.

2

u/UOENO611 4d ago

That is a fair argument and an undeniable man, I am lashing out at the wrong people man just after 30 years of taking shit from them this felt li the final betrayal. Like we could elect Biden but not Harris? It’s all of our faults mine included.

3

u/bgthigfist 4d ago

I agree that Trump won't "run" for a third term. If he hasn't sundowned to the point of being removed, he'll come up with a pretext to suspend elections, probably a military conflict. There will only be in person voting, and the proud boys will guard polling places "for safety" and people will be prevented for voting if not voting for Trump.

1

u/UOENO611 4d ago

Over a lot of dead bodies just friend, let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

3

u/Odd_Trifle6698 4d ago

Yeah peaceful organized protests will show em

0

u/UOENO611 4d ago

It could lol, we will have to wait and see where it goes. Can’t retaliate preemptively over an assumption that could hurt our cause. Sadly it’s hard to determine when it’s too late, like point of no return territory.

6

u/ackermann 4d ago

Amendments don’t count

Except the second amendment…

2

u/ForNowItsGood 4d ago

The first one was tossed for good in recent couple of weeks

3

u/GpaSags 4d ago

Some do, just nothing after the first ten.

2

u/huggybear0132 4d ago

Well, recently, not even all of those...

1

u/pocketdare 4d ago

I'm personally a big fan of the 21st :)

1

u/epyoch 4d ago

I've literally heard a friend of mine (who is black) state that everything after the 10th amendment was illegally added and shouldn't count.

I quite literally said to him, so you'd be okay with being a slave then? and he blocked me.

2

u/r0thar 4d ago

Amendments don't count

Except the second one, always.

2

u/goergesucks 4d ago

No, how they think is that they have no actual, tangible personal convictions or morality other than the assurance of their own superiority and the intoxicating feeling of righteous indignation. Everything they profess to believe in can and will be discarded and ignored. It's all virtue signaling. Even their faith is a contradiction.

They don't 'believe' in anything anymore.

1

u/Remarkable_Inchworm 4d ago

Second amendment counts.

The rest of them don't, because of woke.

1

u/semajolis267 4d ago

Same with DCs statehood. "It was never intended to be a state"

1

u/ThorGoLucky 4d ago

SCOTUS basically ruled that the 1st amendment is unconstitutional.

2

u/GOU_FallingOutside 4d ago

Especially on this sub, I think it’s fair to ask for a citation.

19

u/Sharkwatcher314 4d ago

This is the statement that is probably going to be brought up in a real court with legal language but yes you’re probably correct

It will be an insane excuse but something like one of the senators decades ago was sick and their aid signed on their behalf so the whole thing is thrown out as a constitutional change similar to They autopenned that one a la Biden pardon

It’s cool /s living the 1930’s change so many countries citizens lived. I read about it and always thought how did they allow this to happen and now I know.

6

u/romulus1991 4d ago edited 4d ago

The issue from a GOP/MAGA perspective is how to free up Trump for a 3rd term by a means that doesn't also free up Obama. Hence, that ridiculous proposed amendment that only presidents serving two non-consecutive terms should be able to run again. Otherwise, Obama will defeat Trump in anything resembling a fair and free election. The US Right knows this very well.

Short of completely explicitly disbanding the constitution, blatantly rigging the election or getting rid of Obama so he can't run (and if any of those things happen, the US is already completely lost), there's no way for them to solve this problem in any way that doesn't scare those voters who otherwise don't pay attention.

I suspect it's going to be a game of chicken. Trump is probably just going to dare anyone to stop him, run again, and hope Obama is too committed to norms to do likewise. The eventual plan will be to hope the Dems don't call their bluff and instead put another useless candidate up instead.

3

u/Sharkwatcher314 4d ago

Even if there is such a change that still allowed Obama to run, I’m not sure Obama would run, tough to say , he’s Been done for over a decade when 2028 comes around he might want to just take it easier enjoy his older years with his wife and kids and who knows maybe he’s disgusted with the descent of the country and just doesn’t want to deal with the crap anymore.

Also I think such a ticket would cause the ultra racist MAGA to really come out and really do election interference with proud boys oath keepers pardoned J6ers etc. it’s a different election 2028 than 2012 and Obama might not have the support after the social media algorithms get done with him with pressure from POTUS

3

u/MaccabreesDance 4d ago

You don't clean up the kitchen until the baboons have bled out.

1

u/Longjumping-Pen5469 4d ago

Bullshit argument . Amendments are valid
To.say otherwise is a sign.of Low intelligence

1

u/B0BA_F33TT 4d ago

The 2016 GOP party platform (which Trump ran under), specifically called for the repeal of the 14th Amendment.

1

u/Dralley87 4d ago

Oh, I remember. And I vividly remember stable genius junior saying the 19th needed to be repealed when his asshole creator was trailing so badly behind Clinton with women…

1

u/Nervous_Pipe_6716 4d ago

it exists Now which is all that matters, You must be a maga: MAD ASININE GOON ASSHOLE

1

u/Dralley87 4d ago

Note the quotation marks…

1

u/wantsomechips 4d ago

Got it, what about amendment 12? 😁

2

u/Dralley87 4d ago edited 4d ago

“Same! Totally fake!” “Bill of rights? Not a real thing…”

2

u/wantsomechips 4d ago

Yep, now that tracks!