• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 days ago

    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    Even if they repealed the 22nd Amendment, we don’t allow ex post facto laws, so the repeal wouldn’t apply to him.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.”

    • randoot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

      • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 days ago

        The states control the elections, enough of them could literally just refuse to put him on the ballot.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          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?

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          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.

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Any amendment would be on the same level, and therefore its down to what’s more specific.

    • Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      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

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        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.