Tag: US Constitution

Free Speech….Where Does It Go?

Most all Americans cherish our rights under the Constitution and among those rights are religion, protest and free speech…..but the one that is our biggest advantage is that of free speech….but is it?

It appears that many Americans think the whole right to free speech thing is headed in the wrong direction….

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe freedom of speech is headed in the wrong direction, according to a new poll.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), through its National Speech Index, tracks attitudes toward free speech on a quarterly basis. The latest tracking shows that 74% of Americans believe things are headed in the wrong direction when it comes to free speech. Only 26% believe things are headed in the right direction.

The group says there has been a 10% increase since July in the number of Americans who believe free speech is headed in the wrong direction.

The index, which began tracking attitudes toward free speech in January 2024, has shown political shifts, where Republicans’ attitude shifted in a positive direction around the time President Donald Trump was elected for a second term; however, they have dropped from 69% in July to 55% in October, believing free speech was headed in the right direction.

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/poll-majority-believe-free-speech-us-headed-wrong-direction

It appears that we all love the right to free speech that is until someone uses it and then all Hell breaks loose.

Personally I believe that this country needs free speech and any effort to curb that right needs to be shutdown immediately.

We need that right to survive.

For at least the past half-century, Americans have been committed to a “free speech principle,” holding that speech is to be encouraged because it serves to produce knowledge, to enable the development of personal autonomy, and to facilitate the self-governance of the nation. In this essay, I argue that any such abstract free speech principle is fundamentally misguided. The value of speech is instead the value of the social practice within which speech occurs. Speech is to be encouraged when it advances the purpose of the social practice in which it is embedded. For constitutional purposes, the most important social practice established by communication is the public sphere, whose development in the eighteenth century made possible democratic self-governance. The health of a democracy depends upon whether its public sphere can produce a public opinion capable of legitimating the state. This turns on the quality of a nation’s politics, not on the quantity of its speech. Americans who conceptualize the current crisis as requiring rededication to the free speech principle thus essentially misdiagnose the nature of our contemporary emergency. We need to repair our politics, not our speech.

https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/unfortunate-consequences-misguided-free-speech-principle

What do you think is happening with our right to free speech?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Remember The US Constitution?

That may seem like a silly question to some….but I think it is a valid one.

True many Americans know the term but how many know the document?

I would post a link about here but why no one would use it?

You realize the the Bill of Rights was not part of the original writing of the Constitution, right?

Nope it was not it was an add-on thanks to the work of the anti-Federalists….the BoR was put in to protect one group from the other….but was it a unanimous decision to do so?

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think about the U.S. Constitution?

For many people, the answer probably involves one of the famous individual liberties that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech, due process, or the right to keep and bear arms. When a person argues that something is unconstitutional, what that person often means is that it violates one or more of the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights.

Yet the Constitution did not originally include the Bill of Rights when it was ratified in 1788. Why not?

The answer is that some of the framers of the original Constitution feared that if certain rights were enumerated in the text, all of the other, unenumerated rights would be left wide open for government abuse.

“It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up,” declared future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell at the North Carolina Ratification Convention in 1788. That is “because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation.” What is more, Iredell declared, “it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.”

That was the position taken by those who came to be known as the Federalists. They thought that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was a bad idea not because they were against individual rights, but because they despaired of what might happen to any rights that were not specifically written out.

But the Constitution’s Anti-Federalist critics were not persuaded by such concerns. “The want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed system,” declared the Anti-Federalist pamphleteer who went by the pseudonym “John DeWitt,” “is a solid objection to it.” In his view, “to express those rights” which the government may not infringe was a necessary and proper safeguard against “the intrusion into society of that doctrine of tacit implication which has been the favorite theme of every tyrant from the origin of all governments to the present day.”

https://reason.com/2025/08/14/was-the-bill-of-rights-a-bad-idea-some-founding-fathers-thought-so/

There is so much about our early history that most do not know and schools do very little to change all the misconceptions.

Some say that we as a nation are heading for a constitutional crisis….I disagree we are already ass deep in one….and I am not alone….

There is a lot of talk these days about the desire to be king….that has been going on for longer than you may think….

At no time in our history has there been so illustrious a gathering as the corps of delegates who came together in the State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia late in the spring of 1787 to frame a constitution for the United States of America. After Thomas Jefferson, the country’s envoy in Paris, ran his eyes over the roster, he wrote his counterpart in London, John Adams, “It really is an assembly of demigods.

Yet, distinguished though they were, the delegates had only the foggiest notion of how an executive branch should be constructed. Not one of them anticipated the institution of the presidency as it emerged at the end of the summer.

One frightful goblin haunted their deliberations. The study of history — ancient to modern — instructed them that republics were always short-lived, and they feared that America might quickly adopt kingship.

https://www.americanheritage.com/shall-we-have-king

And it only took 250 years….

So that leaves it up to me and my fellow political historians to correct all the misconceptions….we just hope someone is listening.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Those Past Constitutional Amendments

Let’s have some fun and learn something.

You got it!  The Old Professor is going to drop some history that most have no idea about.

How well do you know your history of this country?  (Purely rhetorical because most know little to nothing)

There has been numerous amendments considered to the Constitutional but we shot down….but what would this country look like if they had passed?

The United States Constitution had been in effect for little more than a year when Congress first moved to amend it. On September 25, 1789, the legislature sent a dozen proposed amendments to the then-13 states (soon to be 14) for ratification, as the law required. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of states had ratified 10 of the 12 amendments, which collectively became known as the Bill of Rights.

Another 17 amendments have been ratified in the 234 years since, for a total of 27. But these measures represent just a tiny fraction of the amendments that have been proposed in Congress over the years—nearly 12,000 to date.

“The U.S. Constitution was intended to be amended,” writes historian Jill Lepore in her new book, We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution. However, “almost all efforts to amend the Constitution fail. Success often takes decades. And for long stretches of American history, amending the Constitution has been effectively impossible.”

Most proposed amendments die quietly in congressional committees (if they even get that far), with only a few sent on to the states for ratification. At present, there are six proposed amendments awaiting possible state ratification—one of them dating back to 1789.

Many failed amendments have involved fairly minor administrative matters. But others would have changed the American government in substantial ways and possibly altered the course of history.

Here are a dozen of those failed amendments and what they set out to accomplish.

In 1866, Missouri Representative George Washington Anderson proposed dropping “United States” from the country’s name and simply calling it “America.” The current name was “not sufficiently comprehensive and significant to indicate the real unity and destiny of the American people as the eventual, paramount power of this hemisphere,” he argued, albeit unsuccessfully.

Weighing in from across the Atlantic, the Illustrated London News mocked the proposal as the “verbal appropriation of a hemisphere.”

Just one hemisphere wasn’t enough for Lucas Miller, a first-term representative from Wisconsin. On a single February day in 1893, he introduced 46 bills, one of which would have changed the country’s name to the “United States of the Earth.”

Miller’s rationale, in his own words, was that “it is possible for the republic to grow through the admission of new states into the union, until every nation on earth has become part of it.” Another source suggests that he might also have settled for the “United States of the World.” Miller’s proposal was widely ridiculed at the time, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the congressman didn’t return for a second term.

(Read On)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/twelve-failed-constitutional-amendments-that-could-have-reshaped-american-history-180987425/

There are a couple that would apply to the situation today….

Abolishing the Senate….not bad should be considered because the Senate is where good bills go to die.

Numbers 8 and 9 deserve consideration…

Numbers 10 -12 should already be part of the Constitution….

If you read the article then I would like to hear your thoughts on these past proposed amendments to our Constitution.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

Class Dismissed

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Erosion Of Rights

We have a Constitution and then we had an add-on that we now call the Bill of Rights.

Our Bill of Rights contains many amendments that deal with just about all aspects of life as an American….but those rights are been chipped away slowly but slowly….and in recent years that chipping has become harder and more extensive….

Since 20 January 2025 the government has attacked many of of the Rights put down by the Founding Fathers….those attacked have been numbers 1,5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15, 22, 23….and the attacks continue.

So do these attacks mean that some think the BoR was a bad idea and needs changing?

Well if they do then they are not alone….from the very beginning some of the Founders were not so keen on the BoR…..let’s look at the start of the debate on this section…..

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think about the U.S. Constitution?

For many people, the answer probably involves one of the famous individual liberties that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech, due process, or the right to keep and bear arms. When a person argues that something is unconstitutional, what that person often means is that it violates one or more of the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights.

Yet the Constitution did not originally include the Bill of Rights when it was ratified in 1788. Why not?

“It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up,” declared future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell at the North Carolina Ratification Convention in 1788. That is “because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation.” What is more, Iredell declared, “it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.”

That was the position taken by those who came to be known as the Federalists. They thought that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was a bad idea not because they were against individual rights, but because they despaired of what might happen to any rights that were not specifically written out.

But the Constitution’s Anti-Federalist critics were not persuaded by such concerns. “The want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed system,” declared the Anti-Federalist pamphleteer who went by the pseudonym “John DeWitt,” “is a solid objection to it.” In his view, “to express those rights” which the government may not infringe was a necessary and proper safeguard against “the intrusion into society of that doctrine of tacit implication which has been the favorite theme of every tyrant from the origin of all governments to the present day.”

Thomas Jefferson, who was then stationed overseas as the American ambassador to France, shared this Anti-Federalist critique: There are “good things” about the new Constitution, Jefferson wrote from Paris in 1787, but one thing “I do not like” is “the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not the law of Nations.” According to Jefferson, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

https://reason.com/2025/08/14/was-the-bill-of-rights-a-bad-idea-some-founding-fathers-thought-so/

At what point do we allow this assault to continue?

Does anyone really care about the loss of rights?

Please let me know.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Picking Apart The Constitution

We keep hearing in the media that the Trump thugs are slowly destroying our beloved Constitution….and it looks like those they say that may be on to something….

Archive searches suggest the White House has scrubbed Sections 9 and 10 pertaining to Habeas Corpus and judicial review of unlawful detention from the official congressional website on the Constitution.

“Does this regime think that by editing the website they can delete these basic rights, or do they just want to make it harder to read about them?” demanded one commenter on Resistbot.

A quick scan of the site’s constitutional summaries from Aug. 6 do not match more thorough archived shots of the same page from May. Among missing texts are summaries for Sections 9 and 10. Section 9 contains language pertaining to Habeas Corpus, including: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Section 10 outlines the rights (and limitations of rights) of states regarding organizing, particularly organizing against the federal government. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

https://www.alternet.org/white-house-constitutional-crisis/

In the rush to round up the usual suspects the Trump thugs will do anything to make some of their actions legal.

I guess he can convince idiots that he is ‘saving’ America from itself.

And the picking continues…..

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

You Be The ‘Judge’

I have not been a fan of SCOTUS for many years, since about 2000, to me they are nothing more than political hacks that use nothing for their decisions other than political dogma….the interpretation of the Constitution means nothing to them.

These people are longer pretending that they use the Constitution as a guideline and that deserves a closer look….

It is quite the bit, really, to spend decades insisting on your “originalist” and “textualist” bonafides, and then when dealt an essentially unbeatable hand simply decide over and over again that that “original” “text” actually means whatever the hell you want it to mean. Or, perhaps more accurately, that the text you supposedly revere simply does not matter, or simply does not exist. I imagine the six conservative Supreme Court Justices sleep as well as anyone in the country.

On Monday, SCOTUS issued a ruling that blocked a May order from a US District Judge that basically ruled Trump could not dismantle the Department of Education unilaterally. That original ruling was just obviously, on-its-face correct: the Department was created by an act of Congress. The president does not, constitutionally speaking, get to just undo that because he feels like it. And yet.

The new ruling was unsigned, and came with no decision explaining the conservatives’ reasoning, such as it may be. This isn’t necessarily unusual for rulings like this, but it does highlight the ruling party’s increasing disdain for the pretenses that generally have been upheld in centuries of Washington’s procedural wranglings — and one might think that literally undoing the Constitution might require some explanation, if the Justices maintained some tiny modicum of shame. Alas.

https://www.splinter.com/the-supreme-court-isnt-even-pretending-anymore

In recent years I believe these ‘hacks’ need to address the people of this nation and these ‘elitist’ dipsticks need to explain their abandonment of the Constitution….

The Supreme Court is allowing Donald Trump to dismantle the Department of Education. But it won’t say why.

Yesterday—almost exactly a week after the Court lifted a lower court’s block on Trump’s plans to fire thousands of federal employees—a majority of the justices decided to give the president the go-ahead for a different set of mass layoffs. Last week, the Court provided a handful of sentences that vaguely gestured at why it might have allowed the administration to move forward. This week, it offered nothing at all. There’s something taunting, almost bullying, about this lack of reasoning, as if the conservative supermajority is saying to the country: You don’t even deserve an explanation.

And this is not the only incident of these ‘hacks’ doing the bidding of a political party and it has only gotten worse in the past 20 years or so.

Time for these ‘people’ to step up and provide the leadership they are suppose to be….instead of the ones fueling the destruction of the Constitution of our great nation.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

For Whites Only

***Let me state from the beginning that at NO point do I agree with anything about this turn of events….I offer it up solely to show just how f*cked up these douche-bags are***

I grew up in the South so at my age I am well aware of the segregation and the ‘Whites Only” signs that were plastered everywhere.

Since about 2010 there has been more harsh language from nationalism and the tearing apart the Constitution…..and now it is becoming more and more troubling since that d/bag took office.

This is a paper that won an award for content….

A white nationalist recently won an academic award for his law school paper arguing how the constitution only applies to white people.

Preston Damsky, a proud white nationalist and antisemite, garnered acclaimed from a University of Florida professor over his paper detailing his interpretation of the doctrine. Last fall, he wrote the paper on “originalism” for the law school seminar. An idea upheld by many conservatives, originalism interprets the constitution as written during its original time period.

According to the New York Times, a Trump-appointed judge who taught the class awarded Damsky the highest honor for his paper. In his assignment, Damsky argued that “We The People,” as first written on the Constitution’s Preamble, actually refers to white people. With this mindset, he defended the idea of stripping voting rights for nonwhite citizens.

He further stated his support for shoot-to-kill orders toward “criminal infiltrators at the border.” He also referred to an America where white people did not make up the majority as a “terrible crime.” Damsky later uttered that white people “cannot be expected to meekly swallow this demographic assault on their sovereignty.”

Instead of concern for his viewpoints, his professor, Judge John L. Badalamenti, congratulated him on his provocative essay. Damsky received the book award, granted to the best student in the class, for his detailed work. Badalamenti did not comment on why he chose his recipient.

The award issuance sparked controversy across the school, with opposers stating Damsky’s recognition undermines his dangerous rhetoric. Despite the calls to revoke his award, the University of Florida’s interim dean Merritt McAlister affirmed the matter, citing his “free speech rights.” McAlister also noted  “institutional neutrality,” a new term in the rise of anti-DEI policies where schools remain impartial on political issues.

However, Damsky’s academic language did not continue on the internet. Months after the dean’s decision, Damsky created an X account to further showcase his views. His post that Jewish people must be ” abolished by any means necessary,” led to his latest scandal.

The jarring remark led to the University of Florida suspending him and barring him from campus. The University even boosted police presence at the law school. However, others believe the initial celebration of his works empowered Damsky to become even louder with his racist beliefs.

The issue also comes at a time where free speech has its own interpretation in Florida public institutions. One professor called out the double standards of Damsky being able to write his essay while she had to change the name of her class over its assertion of race.

(blackenterprise.com)

To me this is clearly racist BS….truth be told if one thinks about the Founders….who were they?

A bunch of white guys most of whom owned slaves….I can see where the jump can be made….not that I would ever agree with the premise at all.

What about you?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

More On That Possible Third Term

I covered this possibility recently and there were some facts in there that everyone should consider….for those that cannot remember back far I am here to help…..(and that is why I keep up my archives….so I can bne checked)….

What About That Third Term?

Please read this post first before moving on to my newest one…..

I know there is a Constitutional thing that states only two terms…..but that will not stop Donny if his ego wants more and more…..but how could this thing happen?

To clarify….what does the Constitution say about this third term?

The Constitution says that a president cannot serve more than two terms – an amendment that was added after Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected four times.

It is explicit….so how can Donny move the needle in his favor?

Democratic critics have used Trump’s third term chatter to say that he is trying to defy the Constitution.

However, some MAGA allies of the president have suggested at least one way around that.

One plan would involve Trump becoming JD Vance’s running mate and then, after a successful 2028 election, Vance resigning and Trump taking over.

(dailymail.co.uk)

Did not Putin try this in one form?

There has been some precedents for his desire and most are from Latin America…..

United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of remaining in office after his second term ends in 2029. Since the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1951, no U.S. president has challenged the two-term limit it established.

However, attempts to circumvent constitutional term limits are not unprecedented elsewhere.

Virtually every country in Latin America has enshrined constitutional term limits as a safeguard against tyranny. These rules vary: some allow only a single term, some permit two, while others enable non-consecutive re-election. Yet several presidents have managed to defy these provisions.

Recent examples include Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador.

Although the institutional norms and political cultures of these countries differ from those of the U.S., examining how term limits have been dismantled offers valuable insights into how any similar efforts by Trump might unfold.

https://theconversation.com/how-donald-trump-could-remain-president-of-the-united-states-255589

It is possible that this country can survive these four years but any longer and I have my doubts.

The Constitution should be the ultimate law of the land as it has been for all our years…..all this circumvention is just making the nation weaker and open to some massive exploitation.

Any thoughts you would care to share?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

What About That Third Term?

There has been way too much to do about Trump’s insistence that he is good for a third term as president…..recently in an interview on one of those propaganda sites that pretend to bring us the news he, Donny, said that he was not joking about a third term….or possibly longer.

President Trump told NBC News over the weekend he was “not joking” about considering a third term because a lot of people want him to do it. And when asked about the issue later aboard Air Force One, Trump added, “We have a long way to go before we even think about that, but I’ve had a lot of people (asking me).” So how serious is all this? A few takes:

  • “When Trump entertained questions on his plane about a third term, he had a faint smirk on his face, indicating that the idea hasn’t fully progressed from the joke phase into a plan of action,” writes Jonathan Chait at the Atlantic. “Trump has always understood questions about his abuses of power as a kind of compliment,” he adds. “The prospect of smashing imagined limits on his power gives him an obvious thrill. He is probing, exploring. And when he finds softness, as he so often does when he presses against a supposed boundary, he presses on.”
  • The right-wing site Twitchy is reveling in all this because of the widespread coverage of Trump’s comments in the mainstream media. These outlets “clearly cannot see when President Trump is having fun at their expense,” reads the post. “Because they are just that dumb.”
  • Pretty much every story takes note of the 22nd Amendment, which stipulates that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” But Trump told NBC there might be ways around that, and entertained Meet the Press host Kristen Welker’s idea of running as JD Vance’s vice president, then having Vance resign. For the record, constitutional scholars say that’s a no-go, per the BBC. “I don’t think there’s any ‘one weird trick’ to getting around presidential term limits,” says Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame, referencing the 22nd Amendment as well.
  • As the debate continues on how serious Trump is about all this, his allies are busy. GOP Rep. Andy Ogles has proposed a change to the Constitution to make Trump eligible because of his non-consecutive terms, notes the New York Times, and Steve Bannon continues to trumpet the idea. Asked by NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo last month how they could get around the Constitution, Bannon said, “We’re working on it,” per Axios.

Personally I believe he is dead serious on his claim…..but for those that relish the idea here is a bit of facts for you….

Lets Look at the Constitution (remember that document?)

On the face of it, the US Constitution seems to rule out anyone having a third term. The 22nd Amendment states:

“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.”

Changing the constitution would require a two-thirds approval from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as approval from three-quarters of the country’s state-level governments.

Trump’s Republican Party controls both chambers of Congress but does not have the majorities needed. Additionally, the Democratic Party controls 18 of the 50 state legislatures.

But with all this constitutional law stuff just how could Donny pull this off?

With all this constitutional law stuff just how could Donny pull this off?

Trump supporters say there is a loophole in the constitution, untested in court.

They argue that the 22nd Amendment only explicitly bans someone being “elected” to more than two presidential terms – and says nothing of “succession”.

Under this theory, Trump could be the vice-presidential running-mate to another candidate – perhaps his own vice-president, JD Vance – in the 2028 election.

If they win, the candidate could be sworn into the White House and then immediately resign – letting Trump take over by succession.

Steve Bannon, the podcaster and prominent former Trump adviser, said he believed Trump would “run and win again”, adding there were “a couple of alternatives” in determining how.

Andy Ogles, a Tennessee Republican in the House of Representatives, introduced a resolution in January calling for a constitutional amendment to allow a president to serve up to three terms – as long as they were not consecutive.

This would mean that only Trump of all living presidents would be eligible – Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W Bush all served consecutive terms, whereas Trump won in 2016, lost in 2020, and won again in 2024.

However, the high bar for constitutional amendments makes Ogles’ proposal a pipe dream – although it got people talking.

Legal scholars (I know how much most MAGA dolts hate those guys) have to say about the very idea.

Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the Constitution’s 12th Amendment says “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States”.

That means serving two terms in office disqualifies anyone from running as a vice-presidential candidate, in his view.

“I don’t think there’s any ‘one weird trick’ to getting around presidential term limits,” he said.

Jeremy Paul, a constitutional law professor at Boston’s Northeastern University, told CBS New there were “no credible legal arguments” for a third term.

It was the Congress that was so against the multiple terms of FDR that they added an amendment but now that some half-wit is their guy they have changed their tune.

All that said is there a loophole Donny can exploit?

The path for Trump to serve a third and potential fourth term as president until January 2037, at 90 years old, is a very real possibility.

It hinges solely on the interpretation of “election” in the 22nd Amendment and the loyalty of Vice President J.D. Vance.

The VP could choose to have Trump as his vice president in the 2028 election and, after winning the election, announce he resigns as soon as he’s sworn in.

This loophole also requires Trump to remain popular enough to win another two election cycles.  (probably not going to happen)

The text of the full 22nd Amendment reads: “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.”

It was ratified into the Constitution in 1951 and was a direct response to Franklin D. Roosevelt winning four consecutive elections during World War 2.

https://knewz.com/how-a-simple-constitution-loophole-could-doom-u-s-to-a-trump-presidency-until-2037/

I do not think that Donny will prevail in this pipe dream….but under his boot anything could be possible.

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Trump And The Constitution

Yes my friends it is that time again….time for a short history lesson from our founding days.

Let’s go back to Trump’s speech on 04 March….

If there are any limits to a president’s power, it wasn’t evident from Donald Trump’s speech before a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025.

In that speech, the first before lawmakers of Trump’s second term, the president declared vast accomplishments during the brief six weeks of his presidency. He claimed to have “brought back free speech” to the country. He declared that there were only two sexes, “male and female.” He reminded the audience that he had unilaterally renamed an international body of water as well as the country’s tallest mountain.

“Our country is on the verge of a comeback the likes of which the world has never witnessed, and perhaps will never witness again,” Trump asserted.

The extravagant claims appear to match Trump’s view of the presidency – one virtually kinglike in its unilateral power.

It’s true that the U.S. Constitution’s crucial section about the executive branch, Article 2, does not grant the president unlimited power. But it does make this figure the sole “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”

This monopoly on the use of force is one way Trump could support his 2019 claim that he can do “whatever I want as President.”

…

When the Constitution was written, many people – from those who drafted the document to those who read it – believed that endowing the president with such powers was dangerous.

Ratified after a lot of huffing and puffing, on May 29, 1790, by rather nervous citizens, the text of the Constitution had stirred many controversies.

It wasn’t just the oftentimes vague language, which includes head-scratchers such as the very preamble, “We the People of the United States.” Nor was the discomfort due solely to the document’s jarring brevity – at 4,543 words, the U.S. Constitution is the shortest written Constitution of any major nation in the world.

No, what made that document especially problematic, to borrow from John Adams, was that it provided for “a monarchical Republick, or if you will a limited Monarchy.”

Trump is the kinglike president many feared when arguing over the US Constitution in 1789 — and his address to Congress showed it

In essence the Constitution was put together to avoid the US from having to answer to yet another king….the actions of our dearly clueless leader is trying to circumvent the Constitutional powers that the office has and make it all about what he wants.

Sorry I do not see any constitutional priority that allows Donny these unlimited powers.

If he wants this to be the law of the land then maybe it is time for constitutional upgrade.

There are, of course, opportunities to amend the constitution without completely scrapping it. Article V states that Congress itself can propose an amendment “whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,” and once the amendment is “ratified by three-fourths of the several states” it becomes “Part of this Constitution.” This process (simpler than the other option, a convention of states) has been successfully used 27 previous times. The convention of states method, on the other hand, may not be restricted to a specific subject and could be used as a vehicle to overturn the entire Constitution.

This will not happen.

Today’s political climate makes it impossible to find an intellectual giant like the founders…there is no one to ‘lead’ the way to saving this country and its laws.

Any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”