Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 Next

Topic: President Trumps term could be extended
Let'sDoThis Joined Tue 04/05/11 Posts: 240	Sat 12/14/19 05:13 PM
Supreme Court Can Extend Trump’s Term By Up To 3 Years If He’s Acquitted In The Senate There’s a little-known precedent on the books that Democrats are trying desperately to have removed before the impeachment trial of President Trump begins. In 1974, as Nixon faced impeachment, the Republican Congress passed a law that would allow his term to be extended if he was acquitted. According to legal analyst and constitutional scholar, Art Tubolls, the fact that the law exists at all sets a precedent: The law is very clear. An acquittal, which they were sure they would get until all the facts came to light, would have meant that Nixon’s term was stolen from him, and that three years or less could be added to his time in office without causing a constitutional crisis. “Because of how Nixon ended his own career and was pardoned, the law was never struck down or removed, meaning it’s still precedent, and only the Supreme Court can take it away. “Our sources say it would be a 5-4 vote to allow President Trump to go on for another three years, making the next Presidential election due in 2023. Trump would still be eligible to run. “That may sound extreme and unconstitutional, but only the SCOTUS can determine that, and they are solidly behind Trump, no matter what crimes he’s committed. The office is better with him in it, and that’s all they’re supposed to care about.“ The White House says the president absolutely would request an extension if acquitted because it’s his constitutional right to do so. If the Democrats want to play dirty, they can spend the next three years campaigning and then get a beat down like they would have in 2020 anyway. What all of this means is that if the Democrats don’t convince 8 Republican Senators to vote to convict, we’ll be making America Great again for three extra years with no elections to worry about. God Bless America.

Argo Joined Mon 11/11/13 Posts: 12416	Sat 12/14/19 06:28 PM
cite the law and your sources or go back to facebook/ twitter and spread some more bs

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48912	Sat 12/14/19 06:31 PM
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, no alleged law passed by Republicans can override the U.S. Constitution, and the latter clearly limits the POTUS to two terms.

Let'sDoThis Joined Tue 04/05/11 Posts: 240	Sat 12/14/19 06:58 PM
Times are a changing. 'The ill-considered impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump have seriously interfered with his first term as president. Thus, argues constitutional scholar William Mattox in The Wall Street Journal, if acquitted, Trump should be eligible for a third term, notwithstanding the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment. Mattox deploys a sports analogy: “In the National Football League, teams can challenge a call on the field — but there’s a risk. If instant replay doesn’t merit overturning the call, the challenging team loses one of its three timeouts. That discourages frivolous challenges and keeps the game flowing, while also providing a way to reverse egregious errors.” Hence, a third term for the president: “That would allow him to make up for the time lost advancing the agenda that voters elected him to enact. It would preserve impeachment for genuine offenses but discourage its use for disputed ones and for mere politics. Absent such an amendment, and in an era when government is divided more often than not, impeachment seems likely to become an increasingly common means of opposition.” Third terms, no amendment needed? Mattox’s proposal sounds radical, but actually, he’s a piker: He wants to accomplish this shift via a constitutional amendment. How old-fashioned. Doesn’t he know that the Constitution is a living thing, made to grow and change with the times? Over the past century, we have made dramatic changes in the extent of federal power, the redistricting of state legislatures, the constitutionalization of abortion and contraception and gay marriage, and much, much more, all without the tedious necessity of an actual amendment to the Constitution.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48912	Sat 12/14/19 09:10 PM
Supreme Court Can Extend Trump’s Term By Up To 3 Years If He’s Acquitted In The Senate There’s a little-known precedent on the books that Democrats are trying desperately to have removed before the impeachment trial of President Trump begins. In 1974, as Nixon faced impeachment, the Republican Congress passed a law that would allow his term to be extended if he was acquitted. According to legal analyst and constitutional scholar, Art Tubolls, the fact that the law exists at all sets a precedent: The law is very clear. An acquittal, which they were sure they would get until all the facts came to light, would have meant that Nixon’s term was stolen from him, and that three years or less could be added to his time in office without causing a constitutional crisis. “Because of how Nixon ended his own career and was pardoned, the law was never struck down or removed, meaning it’s still precedent, and only the Supreme Court can take it away. “Our sources say it would be a 5-4 vote to allow President Trump to go on for another three years, making the next Presidential election due in 2023. Trump would still be eligible to run. “That may sound extreme and unconstitutional, but only the SCOTUS can determine that, and they are solidly behind Trump, no matter what crimes he’s committed. The office is better with him in it, and that’s all they’re supposed to care about.“ The White House says the president absolutely would request an extension if acquitted because it’s his constitutional right to do so. If the Democrats want to play dirty, they can spend the next three years campaigning and then get a beat down like they would have in 2020 anyway. What all of this means is that if the Democrats don’t convince 8 Republican Senators to vote to convict, we’ll be making America Great again for three extra years with no elections to worry about. God Bless America. Art Tubolls is a a fictitious character that Christopher Blair created for his satirical website America’s Last Line of Defense. As reported by the Washington Post on 17 November 2018 . . . In the last two years on his page, America’s Last Line of Defense, Blair had made up stories about California instituting sharia, former president Bill Clinton becoming a serial killer, undocumented immigrants defacing Mount Rushmore, and former president Barack Obama dodging the Vietnam draft when he was 9. “Share if you’re outraged!” his posts often read, and thousands of people on Facebook had clicked “like” and then “share,” most of whom did not recognize his posts as satire. Instead, Blair’s page had become one of the most popular on Facebook among Trump-supporting conservatives over 55. “Nothing on this page is real,” read one of the 14 disclaimers on Blair’s site, and yet in the America of 2018 his stories had become real, reinforcing people’s biases, spreading onto Macedonian and Russian fake news sites, amassing an audience of as many 6 million visitors each month who thought his posts were factual. What Blair had first conceived of as an elaborate joke was beginning to reveal something darker. “No matter how racist, how bigoted, how offensive, how obviously fake we get, people keep coming back,” Blair once wrote, on his own personal Facebook page. “Where is the edge? Is there ever a point where people realize they’re being fed garbage and decide to return to reality?” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nothing-on-this-page-is-real-how-lies-become-truth-in-online-america/2018/11/17/edd44cc8-e85a-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html In short, this topic is about satire that has been mistaken for reality.

jaish Joined Wed 03/20/19 Posts: 1383	Sat 12/14/19 10:10 PM
Ah, but we are discussing a different President altogether On Planet Earth, with President Trump - fiction has turned to fact.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48912	Sun 12/15/19 12:56 AM
One Saturday in late 2015, Trump was a guest host on Saturday Night Live. That episode featured a skit which depicted Trump as the POTUS. I doubt that the SNL writers actually expected Trump to become the POTUS. So, the skit was supposed to be fiction. At least the SNL audience expected satire.

Let'sDoThis Joined Tue 04/05/11 Posts: 240	Sun 12/15/19 03:38 AM
I could see President Trumps crew challenging and suing for time wasted on the charade. I'm actually pretty excited to see what happens when this circus is taken to trial.

pumpilicious 💕 Joined Thu 04/26/18 Posts: 10264	Sun 12/15/19 04:57 AM
cite the law and your sources or go back to facebook/ twitter and spread some more bs Propaganda on twitter is handled accordingly. MAGA world is out of control on facebook & this is the exact reason I rarely go there any go there any longer. Imagine having this human being for your role model.

jaish Joined Wed 03/20/19 Posts: 1383	Sun 12/15/19 06:51 AM
cite the law and your sources or go back to facebook/ twitter and spread some more bs Got to agree with the Flawless Logic. --xx Here's another one: Nadler's mistake in adding 'Obstruction of Justice' now, long after Muller Report was submitted & cleared If he had included it during or while receiving the M_Report - it would have been an extension of the ongoing process. --xx By including it now, Nadler is, among other things, committing Double Jeopardy. --xx In other words, if the House votes on grounds of 'Aid to Ukraine' alone and is overturned at Senate - no issues If the House votes in additionally the 'OOJ' then it makes whole proceedings frivolous. and in 2020 campaign, Trump will charge the Democrats for bringing disrepute to the House --xx Just remember folks, the World is Watching.

pumpilicious 💕 Joined Thu 04/26/18 Posts: 10264	Sun 12/15/19 07:29 AM
cite the law and your sources or go back to facebook/ twitter and spread some more bs Got to agree with the Flawless Logic. --xx Here's another one: Nadler's mistake in adding 'Obstruction of Justice' now, long after Muller Report was submitted & cleared If he had included it during or while receiving the M_Report - it would have been an extension of the ongoing process. --xx By including it now, Nadler is, among other things, committing Double Jeopardy. --xx In other words, if the House votes on grounds of 'Aid to Ukraine' alone and is overturned at Senate - no issues If the House votes in additionally the 'OOJ' then it makes whole proceedings frivolous. and in 2020 campaign, Trump will charge the Democrats for bringing disrepute to the House --xx Just remember folks, the World is Watching. Yes, the world is watching and laughing at us. Allowing a corrupt president to control us. https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/biden-ad-says-the-world-is-laughing-at-trump-74602565922 ************** https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/09/how-the-world-views-the-u-s-and-its-president-in-9-charts/ "Many express frustration about America’s role in the world and say they have little confidence in President Donald Trump to do the right thing in world affairs, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of 25 nations." ************** Post some links so we can debate your propaganda

TxsGal3333 Joined Tue 09/05/06 Posts: 76343	Sun 12/15/19 07:38 AM
But yet the Law is there it was put in place while Nixon was in office and never taken away~~~ Therefore yes it can happen that the Supreme Court could extend his term and the Re-Election could be in 2023 instead of 2020.. Not saying it will happen just saying it is possible.. Hummm so guess it is not BS after all~~~ https://freedomfictions.com/fact-check-can-the-supreme-court-extend-trumps-term-by-3-years-if-hes-acquitted-in-the-senate/ "“There’s a little-known precedent on the books that Democrats are trying desperately to have removed before the impeachment trial of President Trump begins. In 1974, as Nixon faced impeachment, the Republican Congress passed a law that would allow his term to be extended if he was acquitted. The law was specific to Nixon, and was set to expire in 5 years, but Nixon resigned. The removal of the law, therefore, never happened. According to legal analyst and constitutional scholar, Art Tubolls, the fact that the law exists at all sets a precedent: “The law is very clear. An acquittal, which they were sure they would get until all the facts came to light, would have meant that Nixon’s term was stolen from him, and that three years or less could be added to his time in office without causing a constitutional crisis." “Because of how Nixon ended his own career and was pardoned, the law was never struck down or removed, meaning it’s still precedent, and only the Supreme Court can take it away. According to our research, the Supreme Court can absolutely invoke this 1975 law and extend Trump’s term. The catch is, he has to be acquitted by a 2/3rds majority vote. According to our source: “In order to make this happen, Trump would need 72 Senators to side with him, a number he would likely get if acquitted, as those Democrat Senators from red states would want to save their seats in 2020.” That would more than likely cause the Democrat party to implode and lose any chance of ever winning another election."

jaish Joined Wed 03/20/19 Posts: 1383	Sun 12/15/19 07:50 AM Edited by jaish on Sun 12/15/19 08:04 AM
Yes, the world is watching and laughing at us. Allowing a corrupt president to control us. "Many express frustration about America’s role in the world and say they have little confidence in President Donald Trump to do the right thing in world affairs, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of 25 nations." **************** Post some links so we can debate your propaganda World is watching, yes; didn't say 'laughing' World is watching, yes; and 'learning that we have to stand on our own feet' - yes --xx That would more than likely cause the Democrat party to implode and lose any chance of ever winning another election." f.y.i. has happened in India - recently. the Grand Old Party - Indian Congress - socialists - after 60 years dynastic rule -- Implosion is good - young, new blood get to rise.

pumpilicious 💕 Joined Thu 04/26/18 Posts: 10264	Sun 12/15/19 08:03 AM
I said the world is laughing and posted links to support my claim. Unlike you and the OP who txGal had to post links to support because you wouldn't. Yes, learning to be governed by a dictator. Links because it's a political forum with a lot of misinformation out there sir.

jaish Joined Wed 03/20/19 Posts: 1383	Sun 12/15/19 08:12 AM Edited by jaish on Sun 12/15/19 08:15 AM
Sort of right, logic has no place in political forum thanks

eric22t Joined Wed 08/13/14 Posts: 27928	Sun 12/15/19 09:10 AM
But yet the Law is there it was put in place while Nixon was in office and never taken away~~~ Therefore yes it can happen that the Supreme Court could extend his term and the Re-Election could be in 2023 instead of 2020.. Not saying it will happen just saying it is possible.. Hummm so guess it is not BS after all~~~ https://freedomfictions.com/fact-check-can-the-supreme-court-extend-trumps-term-by-3-years-if-hes-acquitted-in-the-senate/ "“There’s a little-known precedent on the books that Democrats are trying desperately to have removed before the impeachment trial of President Trump begins. In 1974, as Nixon faced impeachment, the Republican Congress passed a law that would allow his term to be extended if he was acquitted. The law was specific to Nixon, and was set to expire in 5 years, but Nixon resigned. The removal of the law, therefore, never happened. According to legal analyst and constitutional scholar, Art Tubolls, the fact that the law exists at all sets a precedent: “The law is very clear. An acquittal, which they were sure they would get until all the facts came to light, would have meant that Nixon’s term was stolen from him, and that three years or less could be added to his time in office without causing a constitutional crisis." “Because of how Nixon ended his own career and was pardoned, the law was never struck down or removed, meaning it’s still precedent, and only the Supreme Court can take it away. According to our research, the Supreme Court can absolutely invoke this 1975 law and extend Trump’s term. The catch is, he has to be acquitted by a 2/3rds majority vote. According to our source: “In order to make this happen, Trump would need 72 Senators to side with him, a number he would likely get if acquitted, as those Democrat Senators from red states would want to save their seats in 2020.” That would more than likely cause the Democrat party to implode and lose any chance of ever winning another election." i found this too kristi but nowhere could i find the actual law or the bill/ resolution number to quote the actual text of said 1974 voted in law

Let'sDoThis Joined Tue 04/05/11 Posts: 240	Sun 12/15/19 09:16 AM
But yet the Law is there it was put in place while Nixon was in office and never taken away~~~ Therefore yes it can happen that the Supreme Court could extend his term and the Re-Election could be in 2023 instead of 2020.. Not saying it will happen just saying it is possible.. Hummm so guess it is not BS after all~~~ https://freedomfictions.com/fact-check-can-the-supreme-court-extend-trumps-term-by-3-years-if-hes-acquitted-in-the-senate/ "“There’s a little-known precedent on the books that Democrats are trying desperately to have removed before the impeachment trial of President Trump begins. In 1974, as Nixon faced impeachment, the Republican Congress passed a law that would allow his term to be extended if he was acquitted. The law was specific to Nixon, and was set to expire in 5 years, but Nixon resigned. The removal of the law, therefore, never happened. According to legal analyst and constitutional scholar, Art Tubolls, the fact that the law exists at all sets a precedent: “The law is very clear. An acquittal, which they were sure they would get until all the facts came to light, would have meant that Nixon’s term was stolen from him, and that three years or less could be added to his time in office without causing a constitutional crisis." “Because of how Nixon ended his own career and was pardoned, the law was never struck down or removed, meaning it’s still precedent, and only the Supreme Court can take it away. According to our research, the Supreme Court can absolutely invoke this 1975 law and extend Trump’s term. The catch is, he has to be acquitted by a 2/3rds majority vote. According to our source: “In order to make this happen, Trump would need 72 Senators to side with him, a number he would likely get if acquitted, as those Democrat Senators from red states would want to save their seats in 2020.” That would more than likely cause the Democrat party to implode and lose any chance of ever winning another election." i found this too kristi but nowhere could i find the actual law or the bill/ resolution number to quote the actual text of said 1974 voted in law No surprise. Google is biased and only lists impeachment proceedings. And, as been exposed, leftist snopes has been busted with false reports.

eric22t Joined Wed 08/13/14 Posts: 27928	Sun 12/15/19 09:18 AM
fyi i don't search with google

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 12/15/19 09:19 AM
a little help from the freedom from fictions site About Us Freedomfictions.com is a subsidiary of the “America’s Last Line of Defense” network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery, or as Snopes called it before they lost their war on satire: Junk News About Fake News Call it whatever you like. Just don’t call it something it isn’t. Don’t email us asking for a “source.” Don’t inform us that our stories aren’t true. We have so many disclaimers now that the disclaimers are satirical. We make sure the words “satire” or “fiction” appear in EVERY category BEFORE the story. Twice. If you can seriously read this stuff and think it can be passed off as real to reasonable people, you need to go out, right now, and buy a sense of humor and a clue.

eric22t Joined Wed 08/13/14 Posts: 27928	Sun 12/15/19 09:21 AM
yep saw that too msharmony