the constitution isn’t is a word game and the fact that you can abuse the language to produce an outcome does not mean the constitution allows that outcome. the 22nd amendment was ratified to restrict a president to two terms in office, period. that is what it does.
i am frankly tires of this nihilistic textualism that ignores the plain purpose of constitutional language in favor of a “nothing in the rulebook” approach
I'm sick of it, too, but these guys have so far succeeded in many backdoor ways around the *letter* of the law. So, I doubt they'll have difficulty flouting the *spirit* of the law. This is what I find worrisome.
Except this would be particularly brazen and absurd. It isn’t the same tricky bullshit about something that isn’t made very explicit or is a novel position. It’s directly flouting a very clear and straightforward part of the constitution.
Those guys traffic in the brazen and absurd. And the guardrails are disintegrating before our eyes. It's what worries me. It wiil take a lot of dedication and hard work to keep their lawlessness at bay.
It will…they might succeed in being lawless but it’s truly not every similar to the shit the GOP pulled in the past…each time they did advance further but this time it is absolutely beyond the pale…Unfortunately, America is just partisan enough for people to think it’s regular politics.
I know. Alas...
Jeebus, yes! Why can’t I like this 1000x!!
The AirBud-ass legislating is so tiring.
According to Alito, the right to abortion is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Actually women have no rights mentioned at all. Does that mean the courts should reverse all women’s rights?
if such was possible to do via this nihilism, it is impossible to make any laws, because no law can be sufficiently clear in a way that it can't be twisted. particularly given scotus is occupied by 5-6 people who believe jesus's status as a refugee isn't relevant to christianity, but abortion is.
Talk to John Roberts
I’m also tired of this getting press oxygen. Stop asking him. Whenever he’s says it, smile, nod, move it, and report it noting that it’s prohibited under the constitution.
Air Bud is not a system of government
This is a problem with the entire legal profession. We fetishize the ability to come up with an argument for *any* position. The problem is at some point someone will pay you handsomely to convert your "thought experiment" arguments into "serious" arguments.
The “Air Bud” defense
No Worry…Cheeseburger Gonna Get Him 🍔
you can read the US constitution to allow a president to serve 3 terms but if you so at least admit that you are no longer doing constitutionalism
tribe is being wildly disingenuous here. the plain meaning is in the text! and even if it weren’t, the congressional record is incredibly clear!
no one walking this path has any answer to the question Why would they pass this amendment if it doesn’t forbid it?
exactly! it wasn’t even long ago, the intent was and remains absolutely clear. there is no counterpoint. trump has been elected president twice. he is not eligible to be on a presidential ticket, in either position, ever again. no weird math necessary because no partial terms served. nice and neat.
They wanted to explicitly ban getting elected more than two times but in the process of writing the amendment, they traded the broader language for more stringent language because they probably wanted to account for VP succession in case of death which unfortunately left a potential loophole.
no, there is no loophole. they accounted for taking over as VP and for being elected POTUS. they cover all of it lol
That’s the issue. They could have just wrote “no person shall serve as president for more than 2 terms” which the original amendment proposal was close to but they used “elected” and also wanted to account for when a president dies/resigns before 2 years so the VP can still run for 2 terms as pres
bsky.app/profile/save...
I think this is the area where constitutional norms, precedent, and intent should be follow instead just abiding by the text word for word.
I don't read Tribe as endorsing that view, he's just previewing what Trump and his lawyers will argue (and they will, unless he's dead) in 2027.
larry has a responsibility to not be such a shithead, he’s been producing more chesebro’s lately than obamas
Reached his dotage.
When the language of a statute (or amendment) is ambiguous, courts should defer to the intent behind the amendment. @tribelaw.bsky.social illustrates an ambiguity here in that it’s unclear if it’s elections or service in office. But the intent is as you say, so it SHOULD limit him to two terms.
At least, it should do that if the Roberts Court follows rules for statutory construction for an amendment. I suspect they won’t. Also not 100% sure they’re appropriate for amendments - con law was always my worst subject. So take all this with a grain of salt.
"Injustices often happen by a certain type of sophistry and an excessive deviousness, or by malicious interpretation of the law. It is from this situation that we have the well-worn proverb in general usage, “the more law, the more injustice.” -Cicero (On Duties)
It’s like, yes, you can play Calvinball with words, and, yes, that’s what the Originalists actually do, but we have very extensive records on what the folks writing and adopting the amendment specifically intended, and allowing tyrants to munchkin their way through plain-language loopholes ain’t it!
“Nihilistic textualism” is absolutely a spot-on description of this doomerism, because it basically says legal reasoning is entirely motivated by desired outcomes, and at that point law is just a facade for base power.
Does anyone seriously contend that this is not in fact how things actually work?
There’s legal realism and then there’s legal nihilism. The fact that a bunch of Trump’s own FedSoc-selected jurists are consistently ruling against him suggests that it’s not all just power politics all the way down (the Cannons and and Thomases aside, hacks do exist!).
Trump v US is legal nihilism. They have engaged in it selectively to let Trump into power and might well again.
Bush v. Gore was legal nihilism as well; the Roberts Court, bad and cynical as it is, isn’t the first time the Court has personalized the law in living memory. But it’s important we keep the spot sore, carve deep our heel-marks, because we know tyranny when we see it and need to call it out as such.
There’s a difference between a bad decision based on flawed reasoning, even motivated flawed reasoning, and what we’re seeing, but we can all see that this isn’t law in the normal course of events, it’s a perversion of legal reasoning for one man’s benefit.
There are elected officials in government right now who were alive when the Amendment passed! It's not some ancient historical mystery!
The point is not how we read it. It's how the SCOTUS reads it. And you know they'll read it however Trump wants them to.
A Constitution that is subject to infinitely malleable interpretation at the discretion of the government has ceased to be a (capital-C) Constitution.
Yup. Talk to John Roberts and Samuel Alito about that.
If he lives through his second term it's a miracle
More of a curse or at least bad omen if you ask me...
I think we stopped doing constitutionalism when we allowed a former official to run for president after they engaged in insurrection.
Trump will run for president, the democrats will sue, and the courts will take 8 years to decide while he serves another term.
Does it say anything about a dog being President?
“He’s 35 *in dog years*!”
If the Supreme Court keeps surprising us, then you’re probably right. I’m down to be hopeful about it.
This is high school debate team loser shit.
We all understand what the founders meant but law is a game of technicalities. I don’t understand why everyone is yelling at the guy who’s right about what the text explicitly says. Better to know now what to expect in 2028. The founders fucked up
constitutional law is not a game of technicalities and in any case the constitution is clear here and tribe is offering false ambiguity
The Constitution apparently means whatever SCOTUS wants it to mean.
As others mentioned, Trump should’ve been barred from running due to the 14th amendment, but here we are. The constitution is only clear in that he cannot be elected as president at the top of the ticket (Even though we all understand what the founders meant) But it only matters what SCOTUS thinks
No, it isn’t actually
The truly magnificent success of American law, imo, is how it has enshrined conversation, perhaps even more so than its conclusions. As long as we have conversation, anything is possible and, since most people really don't want to waste their time, it should lean toward good conclusions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just another Trumpism here when it comes to the Constitution—-their are fine interpretations on both sides 😒😩😡
It's naive to think they ever cared about that. The constitution is just paper. Governments are just people. If you can convince people to go along with things, & the GOP is all in on a 3rd term, then it doesn't matter what's on the paper.
America has already been wordling the second amendment for decades
I’m surprised we haven’t had a smart ass arguing the 22nd amendment is a restraint on the *electoral college* because they elect presidents not voters
"We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." - Chief Justice Marshall (1819)
And it's completely ahistorical! FDR got four, everybody said "Nah, Washington was right - two's enough," amendment passes, roll credits. I know lawyers love to argue but sometimes I really wish they'd lie down until that feeling goes away.
This advice should go out to all lawyers phones on the daily. Like Amber alerts just to lawyers, but Amber is in fact Democracy. “PLEASE LAY DOWN UNTIL THE FEELING PASSES” 🥇
Problem is that the original writers could have gone with stricter language but deliberately rejected it in favor of simply “elected”. The loophole is real enough for Trump’s favored judges to give him the go-ahead. www.whitehousetransitionproject.org/wp-content/u...
there is no loophole. the amendment is aimed at codifying the two term norm. that’s what it does. any apparent “loophole” is a mirage produced by a fundamental misunderstanding of what a constitution is
This isn’t right at all. It is obviously carefully worded not to say that. For example if a two term president was later elected speaker and there was some tragedy and the speaker was in line for the presidency the 22nd would not skip over them.
False, here got an Ai that cannot be misconstrued, to analyse the image the guy used to state his opinion. I’ll go a step further and have it explained so you can understand it cause that can still be confusing.
Stricter language doesn't stop wackos like Thomas and Alito. Either they'll follow the obvious meaning of the words or they'll make shit up. Either they'll do their jobs or they won't.
Amen. Just finished a law review article that tried to position this as some hidden Senate bargain to get Dem support. Reality is this was pushed through by a marriage of the GOP and Southern Dems (who had PLENTY of issues with FDR). They weren’t passing it to be so easily bypassed.
The Constitution is literally just a Rubik’s cube to these people. It’s disgusting.
Also I thought this "loophole" was pretty explicitly closed, doesn't the VP have to be eligible to be elected president?
We should be very clear with Trump and republicans about this. There are no ways in which this is legal and we would be forced to handle this on our own by actively resorting to violence and being forced to kill trump and any republican who tries to support this illegal and unconstitutional action.
Regardless of Bluesky moderation, The fact of the matter is, if Trump tries this, it is a direct attack on the US Constitution, and as a former army officer, I took a oath to uphold the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic and at that point in time, Trump is a domestic enemy.
He's going to start a war so he can keep his presidency like Zelensky.
Republican math: youtu.be/oN2_NarcM8c “Did you ever go to school, stupid?” “Yes sir, and I came out the same way.”
Republicans in 2025 do not remotely consider constitutionalism. It’s 100% “whatever we feel like”-ism. Sometimes there’s overlap with the constitution but that’s just by accident
And, if congress happened to care, impeachment powers are broad enough to guard against scoundrels who think they found the cheat codes to the constitution.
This is why Dworkin called for people to admit that their readings of the Constitution are not really textualist at all - they are ‘moral’ readings because interpreting the Constitution’s text *requires* a moral reading. Failure to admit that simply leads to abuse by so-called originalists.
In other words, the text itself may be clear, but as long as people are prepared to play word games while pretending they are not making an interpretation based on their previously held moral beliefs, it’s all pointless. Exactly as you say.
Isn’t that what their precious “textualism” has done? Turned the law into a word game?
Grognards but for the constitution
That’s the thing, I don’t think he can read
Indeed. There are so many ACTUAL FUCKING THINGS HE'S DOING that we can focus on, why is this so fucking spectacularly stupid thing gaining so much focus
The amendment was pushed by Republicans who feared another FDR--another too popular and successful Democratic president. OF COURSE the same rules don't apply then when the tables are turned...
Did we learn nothing from Air Bud
Air Bud Con Law
Turns out there's a lot of laws you can skirt while maybe technically not breaking them if you simply have no integrity.
Did someone say "nihilistic textualism"?
‘Sorry coach, it doesn’t say a donkey can’t kick field goals!’ Trump 28!
Air Bud constitutionalism
The language in the US Constitution is anything but plain. Americans have gone to war with commas several times. Finding loopholes is an American institution portrayed in every legal TV show and fought for in courtrooms for ages. The inability to accept boundaries is the basis for many problems.
Sounds like someone hasn't seen Air Bud 🤔
Particularly from one of the key theorists on the issue; wrote a whole set of books about reading the document and everything, and yet
Tribe is everything wrong with the legal academy and why they are undeserving of the status they’ve enjoyed
Agreed, I’m sick of this “Air Bud Rules” bullshit.
The card says moops
While Costanza is holding a card that says “Moors” in huge letters.
quite literally, what is even the point of a constitution if you believe its language is so meaningless as this? Why study it much less build a government around it?
Volumes could be written on this question. A constitution works when people believe in it. Is it better to continue believing in it in order to rescue it, or acknowledge that it documented a shared reality that no longer holds?
So many people have become jaded seeing the Supreme Court appear to either ignore prohibited behavior or rule in patently political ways that I think too many of us have given up any pretense in believing the law will be the law and assuming the loophole-based outcome.
The next billionaire to see the inside of a prison cell will be the first.
Especially after the loophole-based outcome of Trump v. Anderson.
But I am definitely tired, too.
Americans need to wake up to the fact that their constitution only worked when an overwhelming majority of the people were actively working to ensure that it did; once that was no longer the case it just became a worthless historical curiosity.
Me too. Everyone knows the 22nd amendment was passed after FDR served 4 terms so that no one could be elected to more than 2 terms. Clearly the intent and purpose was to stop any other avenue as well. There wasn’t an intentional loophole or omission. It isn’t a complicated point.
"The card says 'Moops'." but for constitutional jurisprudence.
Much of the Constitution depends on people acting in ways that comported with 18th C notions of honor. Once right wing politicians dispensed with honor, the constitution got pancreatic cancer. Advise and consent became withhold consent, etc.
I think this is where the elite law schools let us down. It’s all a fucking word game.
Originalism can bite us, too. And has.
the shit-eating grin these people have when they roll out these galaxy brain amoral "ah but it doesn't say a dog can't do a fascism" bullshit arguments is so, so very punchable
This is a reminder that when someone says they're a "constitutional originalist", what they really mean is that they want to bring slavery back.
This is the entire basis for unitary executive theory too
I swear the number of people whose brains broke during the War On Terror and now they think everything is about rules-lawyering, not principles. Feels like the John Yoo torture memo was a kind of inflection point, where American conservatives decided they could rationalise away human rights.
the immortal science of air bud thought
It also ignores the recent rulings that are rejecting exactly those kinds of semantic word games. Because we should keep quoting laws imho until somebody decides they’re gonna make it about guns.
The problem is that the current SCOTUS may well be happy to dip into that "nihilistic textualism" if the GOP nominates Trump for VP in 2028 and a case over this comes before them.
The people making these arguments always sound like SovCits trying to argue that laws don't apply to them because the Magna Carta is magic.
While I agree with you here I dont think there is any way around having this kinda bullshit so long as our legal system wants to pretend its this "politically neutral just calling balls and strikes" kind of affair.
Thank you!! I was calling this the “I’m not touching” game yesterday because that’s what it is. A childish tactic that should have been dealt with by pulling over the car and telling them to fucking knock it off and not by going “well the constitution is what republicans/the SC says it is”
His army are mob-like defense attorneys. Do MAGA really allign w organized crime, when it gets down to it?
playing out their ridiculous argument for 5 seconds shows the absurdity. oh, it doesn’t bar a third term based on technicalities? that’s weird, because i’m pretty sure it was enacted because a popular president violated a sacred norm during wartime. so was the entire nation in 1951, what… gullible?
Tell that to the "textualists".
Yeah, but this is the same Supreme Court that saw nothing wrong with tossing this in the trash.
Tribe has gone round the bend, alas. Some time ago.
Part of the problem with these legal academics is that their incentives all point towards coming up with wacky arguments that give them an angle for publication and being interviewed. They don’t so much care what the real-world consequences are of giving cover to fascists.
The guy who wouldn't leave office last time he was voted out is certainly going to try to stay in office next time, too. It's entirely predictable that he will seek to stay in power.
Agreed. I think the only way he will leave office is if he dies or he is physically removed by the police or military.
Hmm . . . I definitely favor one of those over the other. 😜
Well then, we can elect Obama again
Wilhoit's Law, still undefeated it is a word game for Conservatives
Well he is a lawyer
Natural languages more generally are always somewhat ambiguous anyway. What is a term? What is a year? What if the office of the president is renamed to "Lord Protector"? It's always possible to interpret a given set of words to mean its opposite, given enough time and motivation.
He'll be gone before midterms and the heritage foundation and Russia will have complete control
Man, I like the cut of your jib, sir. Absolutely. FDR called it. That's too much power for a president in a Republic. FDR knew what someone like Trump would do with that kind of power.
Oooh! I like it! Let’s hear this debate live?
Textualism has always been a farce and a tool. It was never honest interpretation of law & language.
He just makes it up as he goes along. Vladimir Putin is the real president in America. We have no constitution.
suno.com/song/7e3a951...
He and Republican voters (and non voters too) have no respect for America, American ideals, or the American people.
Trump is, in fact, ineligible to be President because of the 22nd amendment. Geez. Would Tribe accept his own lame argument from a first year law student?
Laurence Tribe making a wonderful argument that people that look like poorly embalming corpses should be barred from any form of political speech regardless of party affiliation.
So was section 3 of the 14th.
FOTUS is employing his usual distract and deflect. Ignore his mouth and pay attention to his actions. He is destroying our government piece by piece and wants are attention elsewhere.
I find his QED so obnoxious, like larry, brosky, why would he be running for vp if hes eligible to be prez? Oh yeah, he cant be elected but he could serve, cool. What do you think it means for a non-elected president to serve? You think maybe its not in the amendments because its an obvious oxymoron
If he was eligible he wouldnt have to run as vp Like to torture it all so you end up saying im eligible to serve but ineligible to be elected is like saying if you commit suicide, ill arrest you Its gobbledygook
It’s a distraction. His coup will be complete by the end of this term and he’s gone in record as saying we’ll never have to vote again. Our democracy is being tortured and killed in front of us.
I wish there were a way to support this comment without clicking on a heart.
This fucking air bud thinking is gonna destroy us all
theblop.org
I don't know why anyone is taking this seriously. The felon will be well into his 80s, if he hasn't had a stroke or succumbed to dementia, by the time the next election comes around. Who wants a wanna-be dictator that age?
He would only be allowed 2 years more if JD was elected then resigned.
If it were this straightforward Obama could have run as Biden’s VP.
The Supreme Court has kind of decided it *is* a word game. That should absolutely be fought against, but we must be realistic that the Court that refused to allow Trump to be removed from the ballot for insurrection might well rule in his favour on this.
SCOTUS does what the billionaires who bought em say "do"
Lawyer brain melts your neurons, man. Sad to see
So Obama runs against him?
This is more than frightening
He was also pretty *explicit* about 22A barring *serving* a third term in 2017! bsky.app/profile/evly...
Absolutely, and here the problem isn't even textualism per se but the most superficial form of textualism. I think the textual case is actually quite weak.
They will cherry pick the Constitution the same way they cherry pick the Bible. They will twist the words to mean whatever is necessary to justify the outcome they've already decided upon in advance.
They're going to keep pushing until people are in the streets and I don't think that's really going to start happening until after the tariffs make going to Wal-Mart shocking. People were bitching about prices before, wait.
Dark MAGA supposedly have ways to get around the 22nd amendment and we would be fools to believe they won’t try it.
I'd agree with you if we had virtually any other SCOTUS
We all know what the intent of the amendment is, but Larry Tribe isn't some fringe weirdo making weirdo noises that are obviously wrong and no danger to us. There's nihilism and there's sticking your head in the sand. I propose we do neither. But, hey. America.
He can be obliviously wrong (and he is) and the concept at issue can still be a danger to us. Tribe lending his credibility to this complete nonsense does not make us any more aware of the threat, it only makes the threat more dangerous.
Silence isn't going to do us any good. Nor is it going to hide any arguments from MAGA litigators. And we've seen what 'trusting the process' did for us both times Trump got elected, and for each of his 34 felonies. Every alarm should go off, and we should respond substantively and credibly.
Trump is a Convicted Felon! I guess back in the day they were not expecting a criminal President!
Sorry but it’s all a word game. Win it.
Most of his rankings about this are to distract from the Signal scandal!
Wonder when JD will snap to the fact that there’s an ‘exit strategy’ coming with his name on it..
This conversation need not take place if people like you and the Quesling law firms and the sheep for senators and representatives would have worked to gather this time last year to really put the crook now president in jail.
Quick, can we get you on SCOTUS? There's reason to worry that 5 of the current 9 will not see it your way.
Why is anyone talking about this? The fool has been in office for 2+ months. He will be drooling and shitting himself by 2028, even more than he does now. This is ridiculous, a fear tactic, a panic button that has everyone pusshing it. For fk sake.
And the 14th Amendment was ratified to keep insurrectionists out of office, yet here we are. You think he’ll just decline to run again because he respects the history of the 22nd Amendment?
I think he needs to eat at McDonald’s every day
Yeah, well… The 1st Amend ensured separation of church and state yet our currency has “in god we trust” on it. 2nd Amend is about states being allowed to keep an armed military.
This whole saga shows the hypocrisy of textualism. When R’s out of power, it’s a limiting principle for government. “That’s not in the text, you (liberals) can’t rely on x longstanding rights.” When R’s in power, it expands executive powers because of the Air Bud Principle: not explicitly outlawed
You're correct but I expect Trump not to care about the rules like he's always done. The question then becomes, will anything stop him? I expect the Republican party & right wing media to go along with it.
SCOTUS has been playing "word game[s]" w/ the Constitution since Marbury v Madison. As lawyers, we're trained to explore every angle of a case. And in constitutional matters, that means, in the words of Th. Jefferson, all the "twistifications" possible.
lawyers love to think they found a technicality even if it means throwing the law in the trash
law school encourages creative thinking. it’s our whole education. when you get out that generally stops being a thing for the vast majority. but the academics never stop, it’s their whole fucking career.
99% of lawyers think this guy is a dipshit.
It’s like an awful attempt to parody Abbott and Costello’s 7x13=28 routine.
I guess my question is what if he uses the military to surround himself and the White House?
All laws are just word games. That's why everything is so fucked.
I have never heard of any president repeatedly discussing his possible next campaign after being in office for 2 months. And doing an absolutely abysmal job during those 2 months. He truly cannot stand the idea that he won’t be the biggest news story and the world will move on without him.
also he is 78
#TyrannicalTrump is Making America Grim Again This is a distraction from Signalgate and the failing economy, and his losses in the courts.
trump is a mentally impaired crackpot at 78. Can you imagine what condition he’s gonna be at 82?
Laurence is not using common sense here. I'm disappointed.
🐻 💪.
Trump isn't even eligible to occupy the office of President right now until Congress takes a 2/3 majority vote to remove his insurrectionist status. They do not care about a rule of law that applies equally to us all, they want to rule by law.
He's taking a leaf out of Putin's book.
Isn't this the same ploy for longevity as the Putin-Medvedev musical chairs in 2008 and 2012?
Trump has never had any intention of following the Constitution. You could try explaining it to him but he wouldn't listen.
The USA needs a better constitution. It needs a better system of checks and balances.
I don’t see his “health” (evil Capitol life force?) holding out that long. He looks very unhealthy. In all ways.
I keep thinking how, if you take even one step back, the ENTIRE point of our revolution and the Constitution is so clearly to prevent capricious, monarchic government and to the extent we tolerate word games to allow a king-like executive we’ve totally lost the plot
I think it’s actually good to point out semantic bullshit games that they will probably try to push. But that’s not what Lawrence is doing here, he’s presenting it as if it’s totally cool and legal and that’s conceding the fight before it even begins
I did hear a crack head plan. Trump runs as VP and the elected president steps down to let Trump have control.
He has to be on the ballot first of all, the Blue States will fix that!
wouldn't count on it... colorado tried to fix that last year and was shot down by scotus
I believe the conservative supreme court justices have routinely treated this as a word game. This is what makes this so dangerous.
OK so Trump switches the President & VP tickets right before the election & if he wins, then as President he pardons Thomas Crooks & has DOGE fire the entire Secret Service the day before the Inauguration ….. (See appendix 12)
He shouldn’t have been eligible to run this time, let alone another time. He’s a convicted felon.
And now “back to our regularly scheduled scandal- Signalgate. “
He is assuming that any of are going to survive the next four years!!!!
When the match is struck & the wick to the dynamite is lit(again), I wonder while the most recent grievance is thrown into the pipeline, what’s really going on?What’s the left hand doing & what’s been done about the last grievance? (Signalgate 🙄) it feels like chasing their narrative. A LOT.
Here’s exactly what I mean. Eloquently demonstrated: substack.com/@deanmathiew... We gotta get out of the weeds. I don’t know what the answer is, but we can’t keep focusing on the grenades being thrown.
So Tribe thinks Scotus would let this happen? Why have these constitutional scholars not been spending their careers sounding the alarm about the utter fragility of our constitution and amendments ?
There's only one solution for this.
Someone in the comments suggested Obama run against Trump. Seconded.
I guess we’re like 2.5 months in and it’s complete insanity daily so i don’t know how he’s going to do it but he absolutely will find his way into running again, or he’ll invoke some wartime powers or some shit into cancelling the election altogether.
It doesn’t make sense as a method of constitutional interpretation and it doesn’t make sense politically. It’s just law professor edgelording. bsky.app/profile/amdi...
If you really think it’s fair game for Trump to go for a third term because *technically* you could interpret the 12&22 to allow a bad faith maneuver into a position one is *expressly prohibited* from being *elected* into, then just admit you disregard the entire concept of law.
There is simply no way to draft law to account for every possible loophole some corrupt mfer will try and slip through. It’s one reason why we have theories of interpretation, such as the absurd result rule. A fucking law professor might pause for a second to remember that, but clickbait is calling.
Wasn't it conservatives who used to praise the US Constitution (compared to state constitutions) for being terse and thus covering a lot of ground with fewer words? I believe it was.
If the 22nd Amendment doesn't prohibit Trump from running or serving, the 14th damn sure does.
Mind you sacking the good generals and installing friendly ones reduces the chance of the military protecting the Constitution as per their oath when you come to throw it away
This right here! People are like, "they" will never let this happen. They who? There is no "they." Who is going to pry Trump out of the Oval Office when the people in charge of the entire military and all of the intelligence agencies are incompetent Trump loyalists?
Hopefully he dies before then so problem solved 😬
This kinda of “textualism” also forgets the entire amendment: “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.”
Which means the third term would make the second term illegal. It doesn’t specifically state that that election “more than once” only occurs in the future 🤷♂️
He cannot serve three terms in any form. These pontificators are just trying to normalize insane BS.
None of us thought we’d see what we’re seeing in the first 90 days. The fact that the Constitution says what it says doesn’t seem to have stopped anyone so far from violating it. Congress appears to be relinquishing its role so far. Riddle me who in this machine cares about the 22nd?
Same could be said for the 14th but here we are.
1951 America: “Let’s make it nice and simple, so it can be easily understood by everyone. They won’t misconstrue this like the 2nd Amendment.” 2025 America:
Yet there must be a reason it was worded that way.
That’s the thing that’s so enraging about originalism—it definitionally, intentionally, as a matter of doctrine, *reduces* the constitution to a word game where abusing the language to fit a political goal is the objective.
That’s simply the only explanation for a jurisprudence that admits to sweeping expansions of personal gun rights relying upon 16th Century English Common Law as plainly material in 2A cases, but all of a sudden in 14A cases is all “wubwubwub well who can SAY what an insurrection is”
Scalia used originalism to make the constitution mean what he wanted it to. The 2A expansion, even Scalia couldn't find a way to twist it to his whims. He ended up meditating and praying to get his 🐂💩 decision. He was an ass. Glad he is gone.
Jamelle, any chance you are working on a piece on this? Would love to have something to offer my teacher colleagues that is very clear on this exact point you’re making here.
But if he has a pig-chip brain by then is he technically the same person?
He SHOULD be ineligible under 14th Am., Sec. 3, but I’m pretty sure SCOTUS will “interpret” that for us shortly.
The 22nd Amendment is what the Supreme Court says it is, and right now there's a 6-3 majority that will be looking for ways to help Trump get what he wants. It's a horrible circumstance, created by voters who didn't give a damn or are aligned with Trump.
I agree with this assessment, but I see this less about the judiciary’s approval and more about what happens when they disprove. My guess is that suggestion than gives credence to replace judges wholesale.
While you're absolutely correct on the whole, SCOTUS' recent 14A disqualification and presidential immunity constitutional rewritings more or less render the value of that disallowance meaningless.
I’m amazed at the fact that nobody seems to have caught on the narc “way to comm” This third term bullshit is distraction and deflection, likely from the failing on so many fronts. Who cares? Let’s all focus on limiting the damage and on ‘26
Listen folks,the Republican party will support his staying if it means they retain power and reestablish chattle slavery.
Trump.absolutely is ineligible to run for office & should be in prison for his many crimes, but for some reason, that vile pile of flesh is above the law & the Constitution
They LOVE the constitution until it stops them from doing whatever they want. It’s funny to hear republicans talk about the constitution being a “living document” when normally they think it was “divine” as originally written and scoff at the idea of making changes. Exactly how they use the Bible!
To paraphrase the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, 3 Percenter’s, and other anti-tyranny militias, the 2nd Amendment is there to support the 22nd Amendment.
Also it’s not even been a full YEAR yet! Let’s see if he still has this zeal in 3 years.
Dictators don't have terms.
What about the 14th amendment?
What does the emoluments clause do?
Trump’s faithful believe *this* is his third term.
They want to ignore unhelpful clauses like they did with “well regulated militia.”
Or the last four words of the Tenth Amendment or, effectively, the entirety of the Ninth.
It's very funny that they've landed on the position that the law is indeterminate and can be read to justify nearly any position desired by those in power, which...sounds like critical legal theory??
Ironic that after all the vapors over critical race theory we end up at: "Law is a vehicle for preserving social hierarchy, and its posture of professionalism and expertise is just mystification used to disguise the naked exercise of power (complimentary)"
I know Mr Tribe is a lifelong constitutional lawyer and scholar. But, really?
After reviewing the 22nd today in Civics, I had students learn about France & accountability & one student replied, "I'm really glad they didn't pull an us, but 5 years isn't enough, Marine needs to be barred for life from running."
And another student responded, "oh my god, we're the bad example now. Like, we're cooked if there's no accountability."
“Yeah! It doesn’t prevent him from crowning himself third term president! He just can’t be *elected*” Unbelievable. More efforts to distract from Signalgate.
Well, he wasn’t “elected” in either of the other two elections, he’s actually the “Squatter In Chief” he’ll keep doing it as long as Putin keeps paying him 🤦🏻♀️
"Never believe that [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. ...
"The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. ...
"If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." -Jean-Paul Sartre
They know exactly what the 22nd Amendment says and what it means. They are intentionally playing these word games to try to get us wrapped up in attempting to prove their bullshit argument wrong. Don't take the bait. Just call them lying fascists and move on.
I agree with you, of course, but still find it incredibly funny that everyone trying to sanewash Trump’s third term rantings is like, “all he has to do is run as VP in a winning JD Vance presidential campaign.” OH IS THAT ALL???
"Christians" do this with the New Testament all the time. They find little backdoors in the language to ignore the intent and justify being terrible to people.
I’m so sick of this.
I’m not sure I agree. It goes to some lengths to specify that the president can serve 2.5 terms as long as they are only elected twice, so clearly the authors did draw that distinction.
It gives me no pleasure to report that the original writers of the amendment explicitly rejected stricter language, opting for “elected” instead of “chosen or serve as President… or be eligible to hold the office”. www.whitehousetransitionproject.org/wp-content/u...
what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly
Anyone who thinks any law or constitution will protect them/us from Trump doing anything is clearly not paying attention. Trump understands one rule. "Might is Right".
This 👆...
this is the shit that put Portfio Diaz in charge of Mexico for 4 decades
you're right but at the end of the day the constitution will do no more and no less than what the courts will let it, which as i know you know is how the reconstruction amendments have been gutted (and how with better justices they could be restored)
Counterpoint: it is. And the only good thing this administration has done is demonstrate that fact so people with souls can use it to improve the human condition once we beat them.
But that's not going to stop them from arguing it and having it amplified by the Fox echo chamber. They will attempt to will it into existence.
the man is pure evil
Yea the 14th amend says: No person shall ...hold any office, ... under the United States, .. who, having previously taken an oath, ...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. .
But SCOTUS ignored that completely so who knows what the corrupted court will do this time. After all they have already made him a KING>
Tribe is a real expert though although I tend to agree with you on intent. This is a load of crap from Trump though.
'seeking', not- 'taking' or ''refusing to leave'
He says he's not joking but he is THE JOKE.
Um…you may disagree (and I disagree with him often) but Tribe literally wrote the book on the US Constitution. He knows what it says and can be construed to allow on its face. We don’t have to accept it any more than other provisions of the Constitution but that doesn’t mean he should be dismissed.
okay, and he’s wrong here
I don’t disagree with your basic premise, I just learned in law school that law is whatever ppl in power say it is, particularly where the Constitution is concerned. I think the larger question is viability of relying on adherence “the rule of law” at this point - and what we do in light of that.
Tribe didn't say anything about how it could be "construed." He explicitly said Trump "isn't ineligible." He also has a history of promoting conspiracy theories for clicks. He isn't a reliable source of information.
It fails on the obvious and basic intent and context of the Amendment. It’s like murdering someone and then saying that it wasn’t you, it was the Pets.com handpuppet you were wearing who wielded the knife, so obviously you didn’t commit the crime.
Conservatives treat the Constitution like they treat the Bible. They cherry pick through it to get a narrative that serves their agenda.
And then only to apply it to other people not them.
I mean the 2A literally says the militia is to be “well-regulated”. This is the game they play.
IMHO they cherry pick and distort the bible so it's only natural they apply the same playbook to the constitution and the law.
“One weird trick” has ruined us all.
Trump is not going to make it to the end of this term. He’d be 87 at the end of a third. Clock is ticking for him.
Tribe is showing us how this SCOTUS would rule on the topic.
The language is very clear. The fear is SCTOUS' ability to create new policies and amendments from thin air that back their radical agenda.
Agreed. And why hasn’t any other president since FDR tried this then? Like Trump and his team figured this out and no one previously did? Come on! It’s because it is an absurd and perverted reading of the Constitution. It’s inappropriately technical reading of language. Context and history matter.
Yeah, no idea why Tribe is conceding this. Even for textualists, when the meaning/scope of a term or provision isn't clear, one can look to history and context for guidance. It's pretty clear the 22nd Am. was to codify the two-term limit after FDR did not adhere to it. That should settle it.
I think this is the 4th time I've commented on articles like this with this subject matter--Trump is beginning his 2nd term at age 78. He won't be done w/it until he's 82. Just how old does he think he'll live to be, and how sentient will he be at the end of this term, must less a third? Ridiculous!
Lawyers are so stupid sometimes.
It was the Republicans who imposed term limits bc they were responding to an extremely successful 4-term publically popular presidency by FDR. Now they want to change it to force never ending orange incompetence down our throats.
…but he's distracting us from something
ok but what if the card says "moops"
Everything done to destroy a constitutional democracy is done constitutionally!
Vance runs for president and Trump is his VP. Then, Vance that arrogant little ass voluntarily gives up power to Trump? I don't see that realistically.
I find it so humorous that we can word play with the constitution to allow Trump three terms or end birthright citizenship, but the second amendment is sacrosanct and can have no restrictions. The hypocrisy kills me.
I agree with you in spirit, but I trust that Tribe is knowledgeable about the Constitution. What I'd bring up is this: Trump suggested Vance, if he won, could pass the presidency back like a baton. But why would Vance do that? Why wouldn't he just keep it like a Machiavellian, stingy child?
i am also knowledgeable about the constitution and i think tribe is wrong here
Conway said tonight in the legislative record, they originally had "serve" a 3rd term, but took that language out. I wasn't worried until I heard that.
they likely took it out because it is redundant
2/ In fact, I think the entire conversation is a red herring, insofar as Trump & Co. are consolidating power such that they will never hand it back (cf. Scott Cummings on TRMS). This talk about passing batons to circumvent the 22nd Amendment, IMO, is distraction from his actual autocratic desire.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cvD...
Oh, I'm not impugning your understanding. I mean not to indicate that in any way. Indeed, I want Tribe to be wrong. But I would hear out his argument. Personally, I think Trump floated this story to turn the news cycle away from the Signal scandal. I feel this is water cooler talk, tbh. 🤷🏾
Lawyer brainworms that sees constitutionalism as a value neutral word game is the fucking worst
For this particular instance, why isn't the correct procedure Congress impeaches the switcheroo vs SC says constitution says it is a no go?
Just leads to a world where the only thing that matters is the tortured abstractions of robed law wizards utter spells with the correct chant
But that is of course what they want.
Sorry for posting here I’m trying to find community 😭❤️🩹⬇️
oRiGiNaLiSm
Trying to read the Constitution in legalese when it was not written that way nor intended to be read that way.
But what if the amendment envisioned the exact scenario laid out by tribe and was written to allow that single exception
There isn’t any evidence of that intent other than using “elected” in the amendment which is pretty weak. If the drafters felt that strongly about the VP option why didn’t they just make that clear in the amendment’s text? And this was the 1940s, modern enough that documentary evidence should exist.
So what they're saying is he doesn't intend to run for re-election. He intends to just say he's staying.
By the same standard: Copyright infringement is protected speech under the first amendment. So is espionage. Prisoners of war have the second amendment to keep and bear arms so can't be disarmed when they surrender.
fascism finds a way
The third term talk is meant to derail Signalgate. It’s March 2025. It’s a shiny ball even if he means it.
Voice of rationale finally enters the chat.
The Constitution is not the highest law of the land, the highest law is what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says.
This is nonsense. By his hyper-textual reading someone could be president for life just by constantly running someone at the top of the ticket and flipping it before inauguration day. What kind of nanny-nanny-boo-boo legal system are we trying to run here?
Big “Nothing in the rule book says dogs CAN’T play baseball!” vibes here. This isn’t air bud.
constitutionally disqualified insurrectionist shouldn't even be in the Oval Office
Laurence.. you are FOS. As is your norm.
Have you seen this supreme court!
Our biggest problem today is American lawyers and judges see everything just as highly paid game. That's why big law firms are paying millions to Trump to stay in the game.
Yeah, we had this discussion re: Obama in (*I think) 2020. Funny how at that time the wording was absolute.
I am so sick of hearing tabletop RAW arguments used for things that actually matter. It's an interpretative approach that was barely acceptable when the stakes are an online discussion about a hypothetical action in a make-believe game.
Agreed, it's totally ridiculous how willingly they normalize any BS this man espouses.
youtu.be/VPC7OT6LVW0?...
1) Some two random MAGAs get elected President and VP 2) Trump gets appointed speaker of the house 3) Pres and VP resign 4) Trump is president for a third term I hate to say it but I'm not sure the 22nd amendment prevents this.
Unfortunately one can convince someone else of anything these days. Semantics.
I hope that JD Vance won’t be able to win an election in 2028.
Agreed. At the rate they’re going, even their constituents are starting to despise them. I am reading more and more articles where the smallest/rural towns (of course more on the Red side of things) are getting furious. While I have no sympathy (they chose this), it’s nice to see a little pushback.
And when Trump simply declares without evidence that there has been widespread election fraud and demands that Vance refuse to certify the election so he can remain in power, then what? Do we really expect Vance to stand up to him like Pence did?
Good point. Vance’s lips are on Trump’s wrinkly ass much firmer than Pence.
Not at all. I just hope Congress figures out ahead of time how they’re going to handle it
The constitution also says insurrectionists aren’t allowed to serve office, yet here we are. Our laws are only as strong as the people enforcing it. Nothing is sacred, wake the fuck up!
Oh God, this is the dumbass plan, isn't it? Get a somehow even more pathetically corrupt SCOTUS to decide he can serve as many terms as he wants but only be elected twice? Fuck, I hate living in the dumbest timeline.
It blows me away when public figures display such a high level of ignorance. I work in building codes and we often have to consider the intent and structure of language to enforce them. The 22nd Amendment was a reaction to a specific specific event, there's no semantic argument to invalidate that
🔥
and we're not joking that you make it that long.
The least surprising thing he's said since taking office.
I have every confidence that he is going to try. He might not succeed. But his ego won’t let him NOT try. Plus, he COULD end up his term actually criminally liable for something (yes, even within the bounds of the scotus ruling), making his remaining in office more urgent.
if we took the fact that he has given aid and comfort to seditionists as well as committed sedition himself, he should have been barred from running at all.
Why is Laurence Tribe indulging this?
