Even if they repealed the 22nd Amendment, we don’t allow ex post facto laws, so the repeal wouldn’t apply to him.
United States Constitution
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Article 1, Section 10
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
“an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and providing for a punishment, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.”
The Supreme Court already told them they can’t do that to get Trump on this ballot after he violated the 14th Amendment with his failed insurrection attempt last time. And they went with it. Why would they do this any differently?
The Democrats never wanted him off the ballot, half the party, and all the powerful members, committed to the sloganeering ‘beat him at the ballot box’ whenever the 14th was discussed
They wanted to run against Trump again, and why not, record fundraising evry time they do, even when they lose.
Our repeated mistake is believing a guy that has no history of following rules and norms will suddenly decide to follow them as the most powerful “CEO” on the planet.
Changes to the law are only considered ex post facto laws in the United States when they bring about a criminal punishment - So prosecutors couldn’t charge Trump if the 22nd amendment was changed to only allow 1 term, for example. So if the 22nd amendment was altered to allow for more terms, it would not be considered an Ex post facto law
Also within this very hypothetical scenario, the act of seeking a third term is after the hypothetical amendment, so there is no ex post facto in any case.
Ex post facto refers to criminal laws. Nothing to do with administrative processes. The retroactivity or not of such laws is based on a substantive due process analysis.
Nope.
Even if they repealed the 22nd Amendment, we don’t allow ex post facto laws, so the repeal wouldn’t apply to him.
United States Constitution
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Article 1, Section 10
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
In case you’re wondering, “Bill of Attainder”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
“an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and providing for a punishment, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.”
Who’s going to enforce it? The House? The Senate? The supreme Court?
The law is just pieces of paper if the people who are supposed to enforce it don’t want to.
The states control the elections, enough of them could literally just refuse to put him on the ballot.
The Supreme Court already told them they can’t do that to get Trump on this ballot after he violated the 14th Amendment with his failed insurrection attempt last time. And they went with it. Why would they do this any differently?
The supreme court has no ability to enforce their decisions. The states can and have ignored their orders in the past.
If an order comes back that’s blatant enough, there will be pushback.
https://www.wglt.org/illinois/2024-11-13/jb-pritzker-and-colorados-jared-polis-launch-governors-coalition-to-protect-against-threats-of-autocracy-under-trump
deleted by creator
The Democrats never wanted him off the ballot, half the party, and all the powerful members, committed to the sloganeering ‘beat him at the ballot box’ whenever the 14th was discussed They wanted to run against Trump again, and why not, record fundraising evry time they do, even when they lose.
Is it more than 270 electoral votes worth? No? Then the blue states can have their little tantrum while the GOP laughs all the way back to a majority.
Our repeated mistake is believing a guy that has no history of following rules and norms will suddenly decide to follow them as the most powerful “CEO” on the planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
Changes to the law are only considered ex post facto laws in the United States when they bring about a criminal punishment - So prosecutors couldn’t charge Trump if the 22nd amendment was changed to only allow 1 term, for example. So if the 22nd amendment was altered to allow for more terms, it would not be considered an Ex post facto law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull
IANAL, but this is what I was taught in high school
Also within this very hypothetical scenario, the act of seeking a third term is after the hypothetical amendment, so there is no ex post facto in any case.
If he runs again anyway, what are you going to do? Sue the POTUS in federal court?
That’s a good law, I wonder how long until they change it.
Pray.
These people seem to be good at finding all the cracks in the system like roaches.
Not hard to see when you’re a powermonger that regularly ignores rules.
“Who’s gonna stop me from doing this? That guy? Let’s replace him. New guy, you gonna stop me? No? We cool then.”
Ex post facto refers to criminal laws. Nothing to do with administrative processes. The retroactivity or not of such laws is based on a substantive due process analysis.
Any amendment would be on the same level, and therefore its down to what’s more specific.