Summary

Steve Bannon has suggested Donald Trump could run for president again in 2028, arguing the 22nd Amendment’s two-term limit might not apply since Trump’s terms weren’t consecutive.

Speaking at the New York Young Republican Club, Bannon dismissed legal barriers, echoing claims that Trump’s 2020 loss was illegitimate.

The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, explicitly prohibits anyone from being elected president more than twice, making such a scenario highly improbable without a constitutional amendment.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney predicted Trump’s Vice President-elect JD Vance will likely be the GOP’s 2028 nominee.

  • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It’s an obvious to meant to make us waste time not fighting the near term fights. Bannon is an idiot, we should ignore this and focus on getting ready to resist and insist starting Jan 20th at noon.

  • itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    He will be 82 in 2028 and even less coherent than he is now. I am pretty sure the MAGA-idiots are counting on JD Vance to take over and run in 2028 in Trumps place.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    12 hours ago

    No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once

  • Drusas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Has there ever been a non-violent overthrow of a fascist or otherwise authoritarian regime? Genuine question. I can’t think of any, but I’m no expert.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    People confuse “can” as in “no one can physically stop it” with “not legally able to”.

    trump clearly isn’t playing by the rules, so we need to be on the right page for what “can” they use.

    He legally can’t run in 2028, but laws haven’t stopped him before.

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      14 hours ago

      He also can’t legally be president because he led an insurrection, but that’s not stopping him.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Can’t run for president, but can become VP as someone else’s running mate before they conveniently resign on day 1 and enable 4 more years of Trump.

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        22 hours ago

        The VP has to be a valid presidential candidate precisely for this loophole.

        The bigger problem is that this last election Trump’s eligibility was challenged and the supreme court’s response was “Parties can pick whoever they like to be president, we’ll figure out if they are qualified later”. That means the republican party is free to nominate and run Trump for president in 2028. The supreme court would only get involved if he wins the election, in which case… yeah… we’ve already ran an election which is a huge cluster fuck.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I’d be more worried about this scenario if Trump was a healthy 60 year old man but he’s certainly not that. I’ll be surprised if he makes it through this term coherent enough to maintain power.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      He legally can’t run in 2028, but laws haven’t stopped him before.

      I expect him to try again, and I expect Democrats to glumly be like “okay, I guess, but just because you’re a Republican and we can never say no to you.”

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Like seriously, anyone expecting “bureaucracy” to stop these people is huffing a lot of copium.

    You literally have business leaders trying and failing to talk Trump out of the tariffs.

    The rules literally have not mattered at least since we let our government get away with War Crimes during the Iraq War, this is just the logical end result of that path.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      24 hours ago

      The rules literally have not mattered at least since we let our government get away with War Crimes during the Iraq War, this is just the logical end result of that path.

      • Iran Contra
      • Gulf of Tonkin
      • Batista
      • Hiroshima and Nagasaki
      • Firebombing Tokyo, Dresden, et cetera
      • Trail of Tears, Manifest Destiny, et cetera

      I’m sure there’s plenty more, but that’s what I can manage off the top of my head.

    • Ghostface@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Well until recently copium would of involved never seeing the public execution of a healthcare CEO, but here we are.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Oh, Mitt. There isn’t going to be a 2028 election, you beautiful, dumb Moron… Mormon.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    24 hours ago

    So like how would this play out if he tries? Do the courts say no and tell the states to not put his name on the ballot? Do the states take it into their hands and not put his name off the ballot? What if enough states do put his name on the ballot to win, does the supreme court just say no if he wins?

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Considering that Trump is not eligible to be president because he led an insurrection and the Supreme Court overruled states which tried to uphold that law, I think we can make a guess.

    • Infynis@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      @cogman@lemmy.world posted up above, “Trump’s eligibility was challenged and the supreme court’s response was ‘Parties can pick whoever they like to be president, we’ll figure out if they are qualified later’. That means the republican party is free to nominate and run Trump for president in 2028. The supreme court would only get involved if he wins the election, in which case…”

      Emphasis mine. So what that means is, he’ll be allowed to run, and then his illegitimate Supreme Court will just flip and say “It’s too late now!”

      Same approach they used to deny Garland his seat back when Obama appointed him, just with different obstructionists. Their MO is ‘Rules for Thee, but not for Me’

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      He’ll just say he won, and everyone says “ok” just like they did last month.

    • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      everyone’s just assuming that voting will be a thing at any point in the future

      we’ll go to war and he’ll just declare a perpetual “emergency” and suspend whatever he needs to in order to crown himself supreme leader for life. at least it’ll be entertaining to watch all his sycophant cultists tear each other’s throats out trying to be named his successor when he finally fucking croaks

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Twenty-Second Amendment Section 1

    No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    Section 2

    This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Since the amendment specifically uses the word ‘elected’, and Trump claims he won the election in 2020, that means he was ineligible to run for president this year and therefore the election results are invalid.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      So what you’re saying is - it’s pretty fucking clear. Steve Bannon is, as per usual, completely full of shit.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Of course he is. I mean, there’s not going to be en election in 2028 at all.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Haha! You obviously didn’t see that someone snuck into the National Archives and scrawled “in a row” in Sharpie after “more than twice”. How do we know that was not just a late amendment?