Tag: u.s. constitution
Donald Trump

Could Trump Actually Pull Off An Authoritarian Third Term?

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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.”

Seems pretty clear-cut, right?

But read carefully—”no person shall be elected” to the office. And therein lies the keys to Donald Trump’s fantasies of a third term, saying to NBC’s Kristen Welker. “There are methods which you could do it.”

So how exactly would Trump become president without being elected president?

One way, Trump said, would be to swap tickets with Vice President JD Vance. He would run on a ticket with Vance and get elected vice president. Then, Vance would give up the office out of the goodness of his heart and resign, or maybe Trump would just shiv him, who knows. Trump wouldn’t care either way. Regardless, he would then become president.

Except that won’t work.

The 12th Amendment says, “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

Well, that seems pretty clear-cut, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, that’s not the only avenue for Trump to try and sneak in.

The current order of presidential succession is:

  1. Vice President
  2. Speaker of the House
  3. President Pro Tempore of the Senate
  4. Secretary of State

We’ve already noted that the first is clearly off the table. However, the rest are not.

The Constitution doesn’t actually set requirements for speaker of the House, saying only, “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

While every speaker has been a member of the House, it’s clear that there’s nothing requiring that to be the case. Hence, a Republican House could simply elect Trump as speaker, and then elevate him after both the president and the vice president resigned to pave his return to power.

A plain text reading of the Constitution makes this absolutely possible, though the courts would have to wrestle with the intent of both the 12th and the 22nd Amendments—which collectively make clear that really, two presidential terms is enough. But in this case, Trump wouldn’t be elected to the presidency, he would be elevated to the job.

The more practical impediment to this scenario is that two people would now need to surrender their chances to be president of the United States so fucking Trump could continue trashing the country and the world. People don’t want that, not even Republicans, and that’s before Trump’s policies really do a number on our economy.

Not to mention, those two people will both have gone through a grueling national campaign, won the votes of tens of millions, and for what? To quit and give it all up right after taking the oath to office?

Moving down the list, president pro tempore of the Senate is supposed to preside over the Senate in the absence of the vice president (hence the Latin “for the time being”), which the Constitution pretends is the president of the Senate (and in practice, just means a tie-breaking vote if necessary).

Like the House speaker, the Constitution doesn’t provide any qualifications for the role, so by tradition, the majority party picks its oldest member for the mostly ceremonial position. It is currently Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Presumably a Republican Senate could pick Trump as president pro tempore. But that would require the House to be in Republican hands as well, otherwise a Democratic speaker would ascend to the top. At that point, assuming the whole Republican Party is singing from the same choir book, it would just be easier for the House to make him speaker.

And finally, there’s that secretary of state job. Imagine Trump as secretary of state? Dear god. In any case, it would be a short-term charade. But now you’re talking about four people giving up their chance to be president—the elected president, the elected vice president, the speaker of the House, and the president pro tempore of the Senate. Trump may be deluded enough to think that many people would clear the path for him, but that would fly in the face of human nature. A not-president Trump would have zero leverage over an actual president.

And of course, that’s still assuming that the effort would survive legal challenges based on the 22nd Amendment. After all, it’s clear what the framers of that amendment intended—to prevent another Franklin D. Roosevelt from happening. That is, to prevent another president from entrenching themselves in the Oval Office.

But it does say a lot about Trump that rather than focus on the job at hand, he’s obsessing over a third term. He wants power for the sake of power itself, jealous of despots like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Of course, he’s going to indulge in these sorts of fantasies.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

White Supremacist terrorist group

Historian: Trump's Third Term Yearning May Provoke 'January 6 Scenario'

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump once again flirted with the idea of running for a third term, not ruling it out entirely in an NBC News interview.

But on Monday, presidential historian Tim Naftali told CNN that after the ratification of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, term-limited presidents have no legal way to stay in power. He pointed out that short of the arduous process of amending the Constitution (which involves getting two-thirds support among state legislatures and two-thirds support from both chambers of Congress), Trump will have no choice but to leave the White House in January of 2029.

"President Trump does not have the Constitutional cards in this case," Naftali said. "There are only two scenarios by which you could constitutionally alter the the Constitution and allow him to run for a third term, and they both involve finding 38 states. Donald Trump knows that there aren't 38 red states."

CNN host Brianna Keilar then asked Naftali about the scenario in which Trump could mimic Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was prime minister under Dmitry Medvedev and ran the government behind the scenes before once again ascending to the presidency for yet another term. Keilar posited that Trump could run as Vice President JD Vance's running mate in 2028, only for Vance to then resign if elected and allow Trump to once again occupy the White House for four more years. However, Naftali threw cold water on that idea.

"The 12th amendment of our Constitution stipulates that no one can be a vice presidential candidate if they're not Constitutionally eligible to be president," he said. "That kind of Putin-Medvedev scenario is not possible in our country."

But the historian and New York University associate professor then pivoted to what he viewed as the most pressing question, which is: "Why is he talking this way?" Naftali explained that Trump "knows he doesn't have 38 states" and said that his talk of a third term has just three possible explanations. He added that the third option had particularly dark implications.

"One: Political theater. Donald Trump likes attention. He likes the fact we're talking about him right now. Maybe he's also hoping some people are going to say some things that are a little bit outrageous, which he can use to fundraise," he explained. "Number two, we're living in a in an increasingly evident culture of impunity. The president is using fear to get his way with universities, to get his way with law firms, to get his way with Congress, to get his way with Canada and Greenland and Panama and Ukraine. He's on a roll. And so why not talk about what he really wants, which is to stay in office as long as he can? The third is the January 6th scenario that the president, when he was in his first term, was capable of pushing for an unconstitutional and/or illegal way of staying in office. And maybe he is signaling to his supporters: 'Start thinking about ways we can stay through 2028 and 2029.'"

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Divisions Within GOP Are Threatening Trump's Tax Cut Package

Divisions Within GOP Are Threatening Trump's Tax Cut Package

President-elect Donald Trump has been calling for his GOP allies to pass "one powerful bill" that will tackle a variety of his legislative goals after he returns to the White House, from tax cuts to immigration and the U.S./Mexico border.

But some GOP senators, according to Politico, aren't as enthusiastic about the possibility of one big megabill as Republicans in the House of Representatives. And Bloomberg News reports that some Trump allies believe there is too much "infighting" among Republicans in Congress for the president-elect to get everything he wants on taxes in 2025.

In an article published on Wednesday, January 8, Bloomberg reporters Nancy Cook, Steven T. Dennis, and Billy House explain, "Republicans broadly agree that there's little room for error on what is a rare opportunity for the GOP to update the tax code without having to make any concessions to Democrats. There’s also time pressure: households and privately-held businesses will see their Internal Revenue Service bills rise if Congress doesn’t act by the end of the year. But Republicans openly disagree on how to meet that deadline."

The journalists add, "Hashing out those differences is likely to be a key topic of conversation later Wednesday when Trump meets with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill."

Cook, Dennis, and House note that Stephen Miller, Trump's pick for deputy White House chief of staff, has "pushed lawmakers to first pursue a border security bill" — and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) agrees.

"That pits them against House Republicans, many of whom want to cram all the party’s legislative goals — immigration, energy production and taxes — into a singular bill," according to the Bloomberg News journalists. "That's an approach that yields to the reality that the tiny House GOP majority — a fractious group of lawmakers willing to torch members of their own party during heated disputes — will have a hard time passing even one bill, let alone two."

Cook, Dennis and House point out that near the end of the 2024 presidential race, Trump, "promised to extend the personal tax cuts from 2017 and expand the state and local tax deduction, while also creating new tax breaks like no taxes on tips, overtime pay or Social Security checks."

"Trump has vowed to Wall Street executives that he would reduce the corporate tax rate to as low as 15 percent," the Bloomberg reporters observe. "That laundry list of promises surprised even some of his closest economic advisers, who privately said Trump was unlikely to turn all of this rhetoric into reality."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

A Shameful Tradition: Republicans Erect New Hurdles To Voting

A Shameful Tradition: Republicans Erect New Hurdles To Voting

After the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution — abolishing enslavement, awarding citizenship to Black Americans and guaranteeing their right to vote (Black men, anyway) — it was a time of progress and celebration.

African Americans were elevated to positions in cities, states and at the federal level, including American heroes such as Robert Smalls of South Carolina, first elected in 1874, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was well known by then, though. His sailing skills were crucial in a dramatic escape from enslavement that saw him hijack a Confederate ship he would turn over to the U.S. Navy.

But not everyone viewed the success of Smalls and so many like him as triumphs, proof of the “all men are created equal” doctrine in the Declaration of Independence. For some whites, steeped in the tangled myth of white supremacy and superiority and shocked by the rise of those they considered beneath them, the only answer was repression and violence, often meted out at polling places and the ballot box.

It didn’t matter that these newly elected legislators, when given power, promoted policies that benefited everyone, such as universal public schooling.

In incidents throughout the South, the White League and the Klan killed Black men who had the audacity to exercise their right to vote, intimidating and silencing those who considered doing the same. In the Colfax Massacre in April 1873, an armed group set fire to the Colfax, Louisiana, courthouse, where Republicans and freed people had gathered; between 70 and 150 African Americans were killed by gunfire or in the flames. In Wilmington, North Carolina., white vigilantes intimidated Black voters at the polls, and in 1898, in a bloody coup, overthrew the duly elected, biracial “Fusion” government.

Reconstruction gave way to “Redemption,” couching a return to white domination in the pious language of religion, not the first or last time God was used so shamelessly as cover.

The perpetrators then were Democrats, allied against Lincoln’s Republican Party.

Today, it’s most often Republicans — afraid they can’t convince a majority with ideas alone — who engage in tactics to shrink the electorate to one more amenable to a “Make America Great Again” promise, one that harks back to a time that was not so great for everyone.

It’s not a coincidence that those most amenable to the leader of that movement are white Christian nationalists, eager to align a flawed messenger with a higher power, in order to gain more power on earth.

But the tools are subtle in 2024.

In Republican-led states, with like-minded legislatures, a proliferation of laws has erected hurdles to voting, ones that opponents say disproportionately hit minorities, the poor and the elderly. This week, a federal court in North Carolina is hearing a case brought by the NAACP that is fighting voter ID requirements that Republicans in the state say are not tough enough.

Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee have announced an effort to recruit 100,000 poll watchers in battleground states. You don’t have to be a mind reader to imagine where they could be stationed — Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee — the places where minority voters are concentrated and where Trump insists fraud is going on.

From the 1980s until a few years ago, the RNC was hampered by a consent decree after complaints that posting armed, off-duty law enforcement officers at polls in minority neighborhoods just might intimidate voters. You have to wonder if they’ve learned anything.

America has seen it all before.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, laws that simply sought to balance the scales, right wrongs and achieve some semblance of justice, were all greeted with pushback that the government was going too far, too fast — that whites were losing something when minorities gained long-denied rights.

Some in the crowd in America’s 21st-century attempted coup, on Jan, 6, 2021, toted Confederate flags and signs demanding a violent take back of a country they don’t recognize and don’t want to accept.

Trump in Time magazine echoes the grievances that have never faded away, as he lays out his plans if elected in November. He promises policies to address what he calls a “definite anti-white feeling” in America.

“If you look at the Biden administration, they’re sort of against anybody depending on certain views,” Trump told Time. “They’re against Catholics. They’re against a lot of different people. … I think there is a definite anti-white feeling in this country and that can’t be allowed either.”

No proof, of course, that Mass-attending President Joe Biden is anti-Catholic, or that African Americans, with disproportionate outcomes on everything from maternal health to housing, are cruising along. But division and victimhood are all Trump knows. He supports his followers’ views, all FBI evidence to the contrary, that discrimination and hate crimes against whites are bigger problems than discrimination and violence against African Americans.

Trump and Republicans have already succeeded in states across the country, outlawing the teaching of basic history like the facts at the top of this column, for fear the truth about hard-fought gains, often accompanied by bloody sacrifice, might hurt someone’s feelings or perhaps provoke empathy and understanding for the “other.”

Ignorance of history makes it much easier to sell the lie that the 2020 election was stolen and that byzantine rules and poll watchers are needed to prevent the same in 2024.

Trump’s antics in a Manhattan courtroom have drawn all the attention, understandable with headlines about adult film stars, tabloids and the like. Trump won, in part, in 2016 because he knew how to suck up all the oxygen in the room.

But it’s important to pay attention to the words and actions of those who only love an America that excludes rather than includes the voices and votes of all its citizens, those who look back and like the view.

We’ve seen that America — throughout history and as recently as January 2021. It wasn’t pretty.

Reprinted with permission from Roll Call.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World