Being President is an official act of the office of President, the President isn’t accountable for crimes as part of official acts, therefore breaking the law on Presidential term limits is legal.
Comment on USA President term limits
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Legally he can’t. But legally that fucker should have been in jail long ago, so who knows.
edgemaster72@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Can’t someone run for President, name Trump his vice, then resign?
whotookkarl@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
If they followed the law as written it would go to the next person in order of succession, the congressional house speaker, because he would be ineligible to hold the office after the second term.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Actually, no. The 22 amendment says that a person can’t be “elected” as President while the 25 amendment says that the Vice President shall become President in case of resignation. No contradiction here. So while Trump can’t be elected anymore he can still become President for unlimited terms.
whotookkarl@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
You’re right, I thought it was hold not elected.
LesserAbe@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Right, there’s also a constitutional amendment saying insurrectionists can’t stand for office
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I really wish Biden had gone after him 10% as hard as he went after Sanders.
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
Biden was the chief executive I don’t know why the courts had any say in executing a law that is already on the books. A strong president would have done his job executing the law and making the SC enforce their over reaching decision themselves.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
Does it even matter? trump can get convicted of insurrection but the supreme court can just decide that he hasnt committed an act of insurrection based on their interpretation.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
Too bad people who wrote that didn’t spexify what it meant.
Like does it mean:
A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.
B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection
C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection
D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection.
E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection.
Because
A is just dumb,
B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.
C also allows partisan shenanigans
D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.
E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection.
So yea they should’ve worded it better on what it means.
Badeendje@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
It should be E and the DOJ should have made sure that this was handled in a court of law in the first 100 days. Or maybe even a specialised tribunal for insurrection.
How did they handle the insurrectionists post civil war?