So, i believe this is next.

[boston bean]

Trump declare by EO that the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional that limits a president to two terms.

It will be brought to Scotus and after a long delay they will make a ruling that agrees paving the way for him to remain until his death our dictator.

[Permanut]

2. I believe you are prophetic, boston bean.

[Jedi Guy]

3. He might try, but I'm inclined to doubt it would work even with the current SCOTUS.

The right's attack on the 14th Amendment is a matter of interpretation of its intent. Their stance is that the 14th Amendment was enacted to confer citizenship upon freed slaves and the children of those freed slaves but was never intended to confer citizenship on anyone who just so happened to be born on US soil.

That's a matter of interpretation. There's an English common law concept of "jus soli" or "right of soil", wherein being born on a nation's soil confers citizenship. English common law predates the Constitution altogether, not just the 14th Amendment, so the concept has existed since long before Congress had to tackle the issue of citizenship for former slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War. Furthermore, other countries (such as Canada) confer citizenship in the same way. The UK used to confer citizenship in that way but hasn't done so since 1981. The right's case against the 14th Amendment would be much stronger if the concept of jus soli hadn't existed long before the amendment was enacted.

That said, countries that use jus soli are in the minority. Most countries confer citizenship based on the citizenship of the parents, not where the child happened to be born.

The 22nd Amendment, on the other hand, can't be interpreted any other way than "two terms and that's it" apart from the bits about serving a term to which another was elected, none of which apply to Trump. Even the conservatives on the current SCOTUS couldn't fashion a rhetorical pretzel sufficient to overcome that. It's difficult to argue that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional.

If Trump did mount a challenge to the 22nd Amendment, he'd more likely build his argument around the 2020 election that was "stolen" from him. He's produced zero proof of that in the years since and I can't imagine any will be forthcoming between now and whenever he makes the argument before SCOTUS.

[orangecrush]

4. I put nothing past the current SCROTUS.

[BurnDoubt]

6. In the bag for Deplorable I.

[Blue Full Moon]

12. United States vs Wong Kim Arc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

[Orrex]

5. It'll be so great when he just fucking dies.

[BurnDoubt]

9. Sadly, he's just the head...

The rest of the Dick endures.
God only knows what that looks like.

[dwayneb]

7. And declaring by EO that anyone opposing him is an "enemy of the state"

[dwayneb]

8. Or Vance is elected, and then he hands over the Presidency to Trump

That is the more likely path they will try to take

[Jvp]

13. Next in line

If Trump completes these four years , Don jr. will be next in line. We must have some bad karma!?

[Joinfortmill]

10. I hope not.

[surfered]

11. I no longer doubt any excesses by Trump and his collaborators!

[aggiesal]

14. I believe he'll say ''The Constitution is Unconstitutional!!!'' n/t

[caballojm]

15. Then Obama steps up to serve his country again

and wipes the floor with the orange POS.

[Jack Valentino]

16. THAT is TOO FAR even for our current Supreme Court, IMHO---

but if they ever were to make such a decision as you describe,
those who voted for it would have been signing their own death warrant


Anyway, the President can't cancel a Constitutional Amendment by executive order...
that idea is so preposterous that I have to continue to believe
that even THIS SC would strike it down, 7-2
(with Clarence Thomas and Alito of course being the dissenters)

[moondust]

17. Or the 13th Amendment?

You know many of the Greedy Old Pigs (GOP) including TSF would love to own slaves. I expected some movement in that direction during his first term. Will the SCROTUS SIX ruling that narrows the scope of injunctions make it possible for localities to make their own decisions about slavery? "States' Rights" on steroids?

[JoseBalow]

18. All bets are off with this scRotus

I hope you're wrong, but I wouldn't bet against it.

[GoodRaisin]

19. He's never intended to leave.