Trump 3rd term?

[BigPapaWhit]

Is the goal just to watch the "epic melt down"?

Is the goal to explicitly subvert the will of the founders because you like the guy?

I think half this board is about who can own the other side consequences be damned!

The worst part, it actually hurts any substantive discussion on this board because of the constant bs spread by a few. I am guilty of poking the bear a few times as well. But in fairness, I consider myself equal opportunity: a Russian Bear, Smokey the Bear, Paddington Bear, Bear Markets, Jew Bears, Care Bears, ManBearPig and even a Chinese Panda Bear...

 

[fatpiggy]

Here is the text of the 22nd amendment. Read it for yourselves and don't shoot the messenger. It says what it says.

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

 

[UrHuckleberry]

There is no issue. The amendment says what it says.

If Democrats don't like it, then they should run a better candidate.

This is one of those moments I have to remember you've mentioned you often post things to troll. So won't take the bait.

 

[fatpiggy]

This is one of those moments I have to remember you've mentioned you often post things to troll. So won't take the bait.

What could i possibly be trolling about?

Im not even taking a position, other than i can read.

I would rather Trump not serve a third term. But i am not going to pretend that the constitution prohibits it either. It very clearly does not. I'm just the messenger, read it for yourself.

 

[WapPride]

Do you have similar strict literal interpretations of the 2nd amendment, wrt a well-regulated militia?

 

[fatpiggy]

Do you have similar strict literal interpretations of the 2nd amendment, wrt a well-regulated militia?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[fatpiggy]

And the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. So it is "settled" law. The Supreme Court has never ruled on a third term case. I do not believe.




AI

No, the Second Amendment does not require an individual to be in a militia to be afforded the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to protect an individual's right to possess firearms, independent of militia service.

In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court clarified that the prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") announces a purpose but does not limit the operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed").

So, while the militia is mentioned, the right is tied to "the people" broadly, not just militia members. That said, the amendment's scope isn't unlimited—restrictions like background checks or bans on certain weapons have been upheld as constitutional in various cases, though the details remain debated.

 

[WapPride]

Yeah, I'm aware of DC v Heller, I was just curious if you had a literal interpretation of that amendment as well

 

[fatpiggy]

Yeah, I'm aware of DC v Heller, I was just curious if you had a literal interpretation of that amendment as well

I am for a literal interpretation of the constitution. How could you not be? That is the agreement that binds the people and the land. If it's words are meaningless, we don't have a country.

 

[CUT93]

I'll say this. I would support pretty much any pub candidate over any dem candidate simply based on differing traditional views about govt. Having said that, I would have a very hard time voting for Vance in the next election if I even thought the plan was for him to step down after the election.

I'm also not sure scotus would rule in favor of it if it were challenged. There has been a lot of interpretation based on intent with some rulings. CLEARLY the intent was to prevent someone from serving more than two terms. Particularly when you throw in the language about not being eligible for a 2nd election/term if you served 2+ yrs of a partial term before being elected the first time.

They rarely do this, so I don't expect it to happen, but it would be great if scotus made it known they think the intent was to keep anyone from serving more than two terms.

 

[WapPride]

I am for a literal interpretation of the constitution. How could you not be? That is the agreement that binds the people and the land. If it's words are meaningless, we don't have a country.

Welcome to the last ~60 years of constitutional law debate amongst lawyers/judges (originalism vs textualism vs living text)

Edit: Textualism is normally considered a "literalist" approach to constitutional debate.

 

[fatpiggy]

I'll say this. I would support pretty much any pub candidate over any dem candidate simply based on differing traditional views about govt. Having said that, I would have a very hard time voting for Vance in the next election if I even thought the plan was for him to step down after the election.

I'm also not sure scotus would rule in favor of it if it were challenged. There has been a lot of interpretation based on intent with some rulings. CLEARLY the intent was to prevent someone from serving more than two terms. Particularly when you throw in the language about not being eligible for a 2nd election/term if you served 2+ yrs of a partial term before being elected the first time.

They rarely do this, so I don't expect it to happen, but it would be great if scotus made it known they think the intent was to keep anyone from serving more than two terms.

I 100% understand the desire for Trump to not serve another term. I understand the argument that would not be good for the nation. I understand all that. I don't agree with that or disagree with it at this moment in time.

I can separate that from my reading comprehension skills. The text very clearly states he would be eligible to serve that term.



"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

 

[CUT93]

I 100% understand the desire for Trump to not serve another term. I understand the argument that would not be good for the nation. I understand all that. I don't agree with that or disagree with it at this moment in time.

I can separate that from my reading comprehension skills. The text very clearly states he would be eligible to serve that term.



"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

You are putting words there that are not there. It in no way clearly states that. I'm not saying it clearly states the opposite, but it absolutely does not state he could.

 

[fatpiggy]

This will Shirley bring some tears.




AI

I’m not Grok 3 predicting from the future with a crystal ball—I’m reasoning based on what’s known up to March 31, 2025. The Supreme Court’s ruling on a scenario where JD Vance resigns as president in 2029 and Donald Trump, as his VP, ascends after serving two elected terms (2017–2021 and 2025–2029) would hinge on interpreting the 22nd Amendment. Let’s game it out.

The 22nd Amendment says: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Trump, having been elected in 2016 and 2024, hits that limit. The question is whether succeeding to the presidency from the VP slot counts as being “elected.” The amendment’s text focuses on elections, not total time served, and doesn’t explicitly bar a two-term president from becoming VP and then ascending. The 25th Amendment, meanwhile, clearly states the VP becomes president upon resignation, no exceptions.
A textualist court—like the current 6-3 conservative majority, with justices like Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—might lean toward a strict reading: if Trump isn’t being elected a third time, it’s not prohibited. They could argue the Founders didn’t intend to block succession, only direct elections, and the amendment’s silence on this scenario leaves it permissible. Historical context supports this too: the 22nd was a response to FDR’s four terms via election, not succession.

On the flip side, a more purposivist view—likely pushed by liberal justices like Sotomayor or Kagan—might argue the amendment’s intent was to limit any one person’s grip on power to roughly eight years, period. They could point to the 12th Amendment (VP must be eligible for president) and claim a two-term president can’t be VP because he’s ineligible to serve as president again, elected or not. This hinges on whether “eligible to be elected” extends to total service.

Precedents are thin. The closest analogy is Ford succeeding Nixon, but Ford hadn’t been elected president before. No two-term president has tested this. Political pressure would be huge—progressives would cry foul over a “loophole,” while conservatives might cheer Trump’s return. Public opinion could sway the court indirectly, though they’d deny it.

Given the current court’s makeup (assuming no major shifts by 2029), a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling favoring Trump seems plausible. Textualists like Barrett and Kavanaugh might join the conservatives, prioritizing the amendment’s literal wording over its broader purpose. Dissenters would warn of undermining democratic norms, but without clear text, their case weakens.

Prediction: the Supreme Court would likely rule Trump could serve, focusing on the 22nd Amendment’s election-specific language. But it’d be a razor-thin call, loaded with political fallout, and the justices’ ideological leanings would be decisive. Too close to call definitively—I’d say 60-40 in Trump’s favor based on today’s court.

 

[scotchtiger]

I’m don’t know how the courts would rule, but this would 100% be bad for the country going forward and Trump would be a total asshole to put the country in that position.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I’m don’t know how the courts would rule, but this would 100% be bad for the country going forward and Trump would be a total asshole to put the country in that position.

Last part made me chuckle

 

[dbjork6317]

I’m don’t know how the courts would rule, but this would 100% be bad for the country going forward and Trump would be a total asshole to put the country in that position.

It’d be pretty on brand for Trump

 

[TigerRagRob]

It would be the first time when it was not legal(after the 22nd amendment).

The 22nd Amendment doesn't say what you think it says

Contrary to popular belief, the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution does not actually prohibit a third term for a President.

cornerstonelaw.us

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]

I’m here for more blatant hypocrisy from “small government” conservatives. Sleepy Joe and the Dems wanted to sneak Kamala in office without an election, but it’s great if our team does it.

I’m not voting for Vance, wink wink, under any circumstance if this is seriously entertained.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Trump is trolling on an epic level and it's working extremely well. He's finished after this term imo. JD Vance and Kristi Noem will be the pub ticket and will wipe the floor with whatever miscreants the dems choose to run.

Trump will finish the job in this 4 years. Put your seat belts on.

 

[uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]

Trump is trolling on an epic level and it's working extremely well. He's finished after this term imo. JD Vance and Kristi Noem will be the pub ticket and will wipe the floor with whatever miscreants the dems choose to run.

Trump will finish the job in this 4 years. Put your seat belts on.

Republicans won’t win an election for a decade plus after Trump nukes the economy via tariffs and effectively raises taxes on everyone

 

[TigerGrowls]

Republicans won’t win an election for a decade plus after Trump nukes the economy via tariffs and effectively raises taxes on everyone

We shall see. I think his economic platform will be wildly successful and you know what that means.

 

[uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]

We shall see. I think his economic platform will be wildly successful and you know what that means.

Big tax, big government platforms are ok if they come with a side of orange spray tan and gaudy brass that should have stayed dead in the 80s.

Biden was the devil because of inflation, but don’t worry, when we raise prices (or spend an ass load of money keeping them artificially deflated), it’ll all work out.

Riddle me that. Why are higher prices ok if Trump causes them? Let’s say they create jobs (already suspicious but whatever). You’re in effect saying that you’re good with the government spending a lot of money to create a single job. We could create a ton of jobs digging ditches if we paid people enough for it. Clearly the market doesn’t call for it. The same principle applies in a less extreme way here. If the Dems did it, all I’d hear is Fox News crying about spending.

How many washing machines are Americans gonna buy (at increased cost mind you)? How effectively can American companies raise wages or hire workers when their export market gets hit? Don’t tariffs hurt other countries’ economies too? Yep, turns out it’s not a zero sum game, which is why countries like free trade agreements in the first place. You ask nothing and believe everything Trump tells you.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Big tax, big government platforms are ok if they come with a side of orange spray tan and gaudy brass that should have stayed dead in the 80s.

Biden was the devil because of inflation, but don’t worry, when we raise prices (or spend an ass load of money keeping them artificially deflated), it’ll all work out.

Riddle me that. Why are higher prices ok if Trump causes them? Let’s say they create jobs (already suspicious but whatever). You’re in effect saying that you’re good with the government spending a lot of money to create a single job. If the Dems did it, all I’d hear is Fox News crying about spending

How many washing machines are Americans gonna buy (at increased cost mind you)?

TDS has broken your brain related to anything related to Trump.

 

[uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]

TDS has broken your brain related to anything related to Trump.

Can’t help but laugh. What’s worse, “TDS” or being so far up his ass you can’t think for yourself? You let a politician own your opinion. Shame. I agree with Trump on a fair number of things, or at least I agree with his view more than the typical Dem view. The economy isn’t one of them. That’s it. If I changed every article about Trump’s tariffs to read Biden’s tariffs, you’d say free trade is important for the economy.

No billionaire is actually on your side. You’re a disposable voter.

The tariffs were dumb and hurt the economy the first time. They’re dumber (and will hurt the economy even more) this time.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Can’t help but laugh. What’s worse, “TDS” or being so far up his ass you can’t think for yourself? You let a politician own your opinion. Shame. I agree with Trump on a fair number of things, or at least I agree with his view more than the typical Dem view. The economy isn’t one of them. That’s it. If I changed every article about Trump’s tariffs to read Biden’s tariffs, you’d say free trade is important for the economy.

The tariffs were dumb and hurt the economy the first time. They’re dumber (and will hurt the economy even more) this time.

😆 🤣 😂

OK. I am not up his @$$. I do agree with his economic principles and it's that simple. You do not and that's fine. We will see what happens over these 4 years and see what worked and what didnt.

 

[uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]

😆 🤣 😂

OK. I am not up his @$$. I do agree with his economic principles and it's that simple. You do not and that's fine. We will see what happens over these 4 years and see what worked and what didnt.

Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Worked out great minus that small depression thing.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Worked out great minus that small depression thing.

What about it?

 

[uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]

What about it?

I rest my case folks

 

[TigerGrowls]

I rest my case folks

Your case sucks.

 

[uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]

Your case sucks.

At least I have a case. You borrowed someone else’s

 

[TigerGrowls]

At least I have a case. You borrowed someone else’s

You don't have any more case than anyone else. I just clearly said we will get to see what happens in real time over the Trump term. I will own it if I am wrong and hope you will be willing to own it if you are wrong.

 

[TigerGrowls]

@dpic73 this would be the biggest lib nightmare to have to watch Donald Trump destroy your favorite leader. But I ask......hasn't he already destroyed Barry?

 

[TigerGrowls]

At least I have a case. You borrowed someone else’s

Read and learn from the great one. You're welcome.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Worked out great minus that small depression thing.

Hang with us grazzhoppa and you will be enlightened over the next 4 years.



Smoot-Hawley Was Signed Into Law on June 17, 1930, After the Great Depression Began

Since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed after the onset of the Great Depression, it could not have caused the economic downturn. At most, critics claim it worsened the Depression—yet this claim is unsubstantiated.

Impact on Trade After Smoot-Hawley
U.S. imports dropped from $5.3 billion in 1929 (4.2% of GDP) to $1.7 billion in 1933, while exports declined from $4.4 billion (5% of GDP) to $1.5 billion in the same period. However, foreign trade represented only a small fraction of the U.S. economy during 1929–1933. Notably, the U.S. trade deficit actually improved, shrinking from $900 million to $200 million. In other words, the U.S. was losing less money after Smoot-Hawley. It seems unreasonable to argue that a policy affecting such a small part of the economy could have caused or significantly worsened the Great Depression.

Tariff Rates Under Smoot-Hawley
The highest "dutiable tariff rate" reached under Smoot-Hawley was 59.1% in 1932, slightly below the 61.7% rate of 1830. Yet by 1933, 63% of imports were not taxed at all, a fact not reflected in the “dutiable tariff rate.” The overall “free and dutiable rate” peaked at 19.8% in 1933, still lower than the average 29.7% rate from 1821 to 1900—a period of significant economic growth.

By 1937, the overall tariff rate dropped to 15.6%, but this did not prevent the economic downturn of 1937–1938, further disproving any link between tariffs and economic decline.

Conclusion
Exports made up less than 5% of the U.S. economy in the early 1930s, and the portion of imports impacted by Smoot-Hawley was even smaller. Given that the U.S. had sustained higher average tariffs between 1821 and 1900—during times of strong economic growth—it’s clear that Smoot-Hawley did not cause or worsen the Great Depression. Furthermore, lowering tariffs in 1937 had no measurable effect on the economy.

Smoot-Hawley was neither the cause nor a significant contributor to the Great Depression.

End of story.