Republicans against Trump

[Segnosaur]

Not sure if you are serious or not....

But, the number of terms a president can serve (two) is specified in the 22nd amendment to the constitution. For that to change you would either have to:

In addition to the two you mention, there is also the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could pull a ruling out of their orifices that says the 22nd amendment secretly meant only two consecutive terms. I agree that's a long shot, but I thought the immunity case was a long shot.

True, hadn't thought to mention that.

Or alternatively, Trump could start to campaign for a 3rd term, the supreme court could say "we won't rule on it right away but wait until later" (sort of like they took their time deciding on the immunity issue), and then after the election say "His election violated the constitution but we need to allow him to take office because it would be too unstable to prevent it".

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not sure if you are serious or not....

But, the number of terms a president can serve (two) is specified in the 22nd amendment to the constitution. For that to change you would either have to:

- Get another constitutional amendment, which I am sure would be rejected by both congress (they need 2/3rds majorities in house/senate, and I am pretty sure democrats would reject it.), and the states (3/4ths of the states would have to agree, and I am pretty sure solidly blue states would vote against it.)

- Go outside the law, in which case they could just do away with elections all together (which is probably the ultimate plan but they aren't quite there yet.)

Sure but they are doing that using the image of dictator for life Julius Caesar.

I said it was happening and it is see

https://ogles.house.gov/media/press...g-22nd-amendment-allow-trump-serve-third-term

 

[Segnosaur]

But, the number of terms a president can serve (two) is specified in the 22nd amendment to the constitution. For that to change you would either have to:

- Get another constitutional amendment, which I am sure would be rejected by both congress (they need 2/3rds majorities in house/senate, and I am pretty sure democrats would reject it.), and the states (3/4ths of the states would have to agree, and I am pretty sure solidly blue states would vote against it.)

I said it was happening and it is see

https://ogles.house.gov/media/press...g-22nd-amendment-allow-trump-serve-third-term

Oh, I don't doubt that there are some hardcore Trump boot-lickers in congress (and in various other political positions) who would want to amend the constitution to give Trump a 3rd term. Is just that the formula for changing the constitution allows enough of a pushback by the non-MAGAchud to prevent it from passing.

Its not like a simple law that republicans can change by slipping it into a budget bill against the Democrat's objections. It requires significant bi-partisan support.

 

[JayUtah]

Sure but they are doing that using the image of dictator for life Julius Caesar.

I said it was happening and it is see

https://ogles.house.gov/media/press...g-22nd-amendment-allow-trump-serve-third-term

Indeed, Rep. Ogles is so far up Pres. Trump's backside that he can lick Trump's bullet wound from the inside. Not only is he proposing a constitutional amendment to let Trump run for a third term (but no Democratic former two-termer), he's the one introducing all the articles of impeachment against the judges who are hearing the lawsuits against Trump and Elon Musk.

The amendment is a non-starter. In no credible picture of the Congress for the next four years will it get the requisite majority, and it has no chance of ratification by three-fourths of the states within that time—or ever. But it takes only a simple majority of the House to adopt articles of impeachment which then require Senate action. That will impose credible delay on opposition to the Blitzkrieg of the Trump agenda.

 

[Garrison]

Interesting that Trump turning on Ukraine has gotten more GOP pushback in COngress then anything else Trump has done.

And we've now seen how much impact that had on Trump, slightly less than none.

 

[Resume]

Who, now?

 

[Orphia Nay]

The Senate voted 51-48 against new tariffs on Canada, including 4 Republicans voting against Trump's new tariffs:

"Trump earlier Wednesday singled out the four Republicans — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Rand Paul of Kentucky — who voted in favor of the resolution."

"The Senate’s legislation has practically no chance of passing the Republican-controlled House and being signed by Trump, but it showed the limits of Republican support for Trump’s vision of remaking the U.S. economy by restricting free trade."

Senate rebukes Trump’s tariffs as some Republicans vote to halt taxes on Canadian imports

The Senate has passed a resolution that would thwart President Donald Trump’s ability to impose tariffs on Canada.

apnews.com