[twright]

On paper he can't do a lot of things but the amount of gutting and cutting that's happened in the last two(!) months makes one realize the laws aren't worth the paper they're written on without a proactive congress interested in keeping the executive in check. Suspending birthright citizenship as established in the 14th amendment is a big one that "he can't do." Challenges to E.O. 14160 are going through the courts right now so we'll see.

Legally speaking, I think an outright challenge to the 22nd amendment will be interesting. As a 20th century amendment the language is pretty clear. But once again we look to what would actually enforce it?

[winter_blue]

The scotus would need to strike down the 22nd amendment. Even with as horribly morally bankrupt of a scotus as we have now, I don’t think they’d sink to the low of striking down the 22nd.

[outer_web]

I don't believe scotus can invalidate an amendment. The best they can do is interpret it in a way that allows a third term.

[winter_blue]

The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down a constitutional amendment, that is true.

But in other common law countries, like India, whose legal system is very similar to the U.S., have had cases where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment.

For more on this, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine

With regard to the Indian case above: while I support the goal of judgement, as the goal of the judgment itself is good, the idea of a Supreme Court overriding a constitutional amendment is quite startling.

The supreme courts of several other countries, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda have copied this doctrine.

Who knows when the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to copy this doctrine as well.

[outer_web]

Not sure if it is the same in India but in the US there needs to be a supermajority of both houses and the amendment must be ratified by the states. Since the first ten amendments are considered more or less integral to the constitution, I have a hard time believing even this court would consider itself above amendments.

And even then, term limits would be a weird hill to die on, since it would open the door for future courts to strike down constitutional amendments.

[smw]

He was already ineligible this election based on the 14th amendment, but SCOTUS bailed him out.

[cmurf]

They could pull a Trump v. Anderson, and say neither courts nor states can't keep him off the ballot - only the people, the College, or the Congress can stop it.

[nickpeterson]

I don’t have a ton of faith in scotus right now, but I think they understand their only power is in whether people consider them independent. Allowing a third term for Trump would be accepting that they’re basically in charge of parking tickets.

[coliveira]

I don't think the current Scotus cares in any way about looking independent. Quite the opposite.

[tstrimple]

They legalized bribery in plain sight for everyone to see for fucks sake. They stated that the president is above the law. It's insane to me that anyone thinks our institutions will save us.

[chongli]

Thankfully elections in the US are not run by the federal government, they're run separately in every state. Trump may be able to illegally get on the ballot in some states with the support of friendly state governments but he definitely won't get on all of them.

Even seemingly-friendly southern states may have state governments that will take a dim view of Trump attempting to get on the ballot. Kentucky, for example, has a Democrat as governor who is very popular. Kentucky has also had its bourbon industry devastated by Trump's senseless trade war. I would be shocked if Trump managed to illegally get on the ballot in Kentucky in 2028.

[smw]

SCOTUS didn't allow Colorado to remove him from the ballot this time, what makes you think they won't do the same next time?

[chongli]

This time they have the 22nd amendment on their side. The law is crystal clear. He would need SCOTUS to ignore the constitution in his favour.

Many people think that the conservative majority on the court would automatically side with him and rubber-stamp his candidacy. I highly doubt that. He has already been publicly repudiated by Roberts (chief justice nominated by GW Bush) for his attacks on federal courts [1]. I am confident Roberts would not support any attempt by Trump to ignore the 22nd amendment.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/18/john-roberts-donald...

[darthwalsh]

It's a good thing none of the political parties have recently been floating detailed plans to pack the supreme Court with extra justices. < /s >

If they added 10 young MAGA judges to the supreme Court this year, that would be the biggest legacy of the administration. All the XO can just be undone on day one, assuming we have another pro-democracy president.