• @[email protected]M
    link
    fedilink
    291 month 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    Even if they repealed the 22nd Amendment, we don’t allow ex post facto laws, so the repeal wouldn’t apply to him.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.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      471 month 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      171 month 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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        101 month 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.

    • Em Adespoton
      link
      fedilink
      131 month ago

      If he runs again anyway, what are you going to do? Sue the POTUS in federal court?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 month ago

        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.”

    • Kairos
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      41 month ago

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

    • 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.