It sounds like a bunch of Democrats want to cave in exchange for no concessions whatsoever. Edit: Bloomberg has more details
Current likely Democratic votes for this:
- Shaheen - NH
- Hassan - NH
- King - ME
- Fetterman - PA
- Peters - MI
- Durbin - IL
- Warner - VA
- Kaine - VA
- Ossoff- GA
- Warnock - GA
If you want to change things, you need to call their DC office NOW, and leave an email if you can’t.
Edit 2: enough Democrats joined the Republicans to reopen the government with no real concessions.
The list:
- Durbin
- Hassan
- King
- Cortez Masto
- Kaine
- Shaheen
- Rosen
- Fetterman
- Schumer
- Gillibrand
There was a caucus meeting right before this, so the bulk of the Senate Democrats were likely OK with giving in, even if not willing to vote for it in public
They don’t have near enough votes to amend the Constitution, so it wouldn’t happen whether the government were open or not.
Or they can just…you know…ignore that part.
Of course. But proposing a law that will never get passed doesn’t affect that one way or the other.
It will pass given the proper incentive. Just need to make the Dems sweat a bit, and they’ll pass anything.
Rhe point being made is that a law on the books in direct contradiction of the Constitution does nothing. If they want to keep Trump in power past '28 without modifying the Constitution, then a law such as the one suggested would make literally no difference, legally.
Oh, I’m sure that the Supreme Court can think up of something to make it legal. There’s a popular theory going around that Trump might go the “first term of the 47th” route to remain in power. If the SCOTUS goes with that definition, then Trump gets a third term without adding any amendments.
How?
Nothing about “no presidency shall last more than two terms” or “no President shall be elected more than twice” to make a “47th” argument. No person.
Is Trump 45 a different person from Trump 47? If so, then can we prosecute Trump 45, who is not currently President, for his crimes? I mean, of course his own DoJ wouldn’t. But still.
This is how. I’ll put the relevant amendment part here so we know what we’re working with:
The SCOTUS can claim that the office of President renews, and the old one ceases to exist. Thus, they can say that Trump was elected to the 45th and 47th offices of President, each once. They can further state that the 22nd amendment specifically refers to being elected to one of these particular offices of President, of which 47 have existed to date.
The SCOTUS can then conclude that, since Trump has not been elected to the 47th office of President more than twice, he is eligible for a second term of the 47th office of President. To us, this would be his third, but to the SCOTUS, it would be his second.
I can’t see how anyone would go with this. He also has never been the 48th President, so why not let his number just increment.
Also, the amendment uses the definite article, “the office of the President”. Not an office, or office of a President. I understand that 5 justices can just say whatever the hell they want, but virtually anyone would understand this is neither the intent NOR the most sensible reading of the text.