One of the things that conservatives are good is Overton Window And screaming it violently to the right, we end up in the ditch.
But it’s not just right-wing politicians and activists who find ways to get the most ignorant and unacceptable ideas in the mainstream. Some have conservative lawyers and legal scholars.
The current project is to cut down historical and legal support for Trump’s rise Memories Regarding serving a third term despite the 22nd amendment clearly banning it.
But this is exactly what happened when Trump wanted to ignore the 14th amendment and eliminate birthright citizenship, when he wanted to ignore the college of elections and remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
There is still not much fake support as efforts to transform the 22nd Amendment to create a loophole for Trump to slide in 2028 are relatively new. Mainly, conservatives are stuck in a single Minnesota Legal Review Article Professor Bruce Peabody, originally updated in 1999 in 2016, is considering how the president can avoid the 22nd Amendment bar in his third term.
This particular article is Trump’s ambition to occupy the White House until death plays our part in order to be meticulously fair, and it’s a much more thought experiment than political controversy. But exactly that is the type of thought experiment that is washed down by conservative discourse as an article of faith.
The article that was released in Peabody Possibility To slide into the third season thanks to Trump’s tortured super-sentence reading of the second season.
Language of 22nd amendment Everyone is forbidden to be “elected more than twice to the president’s office.” But I don’t say that someone couldn’t do it serve More than twice in the office led to the complicated possibilities for Trump to stay in the White House.
But this is nonsense. The 22nd Amendment was literally pushed out by Republicans Dew of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s three full terms and fourth part. There is no reliable way to say that what was really intended by the 22nd amendment is generally to ban more than one term.
But now, conservatives have Peabody’s hypothetical explanation of how to trick a loophole in the constitution to help them make their point.
This is also still being developed today as a citizenship from birth. The idea that, as decades ago, the 14th revision would exclude children from citizenship if parents were either permanent residents of the United States or undocumented immigrants at birth, would have come across laughter.
In fact, one of the only people who were pushing for ideas was the election-negative John Eastman, who wrote a breathtaking racist in 2008 and the incredible election. Legal Review Article The United States argues that birthright citizenship should be reconsidered for 9/11.
Eastman was somewhat alone on this issue for a while, but once Trump was fixed, he couldn’t rest on Eastman’s shoulders alone, especially as he was facing both now. State and federal Criminal charges for his role in overturning the 2020 election.
Luckily for Trump, there are other soulless ghouls. Kurt Rush, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, ran through an incomplete, eight-page draft in late February, fleshing it into something boring Page 92 Later last month.
Professor Iran Wahman of the University of Minnesota Law School and Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University took a different route. op-ed To help the New York Times wash these difficult ideas into the mainstream.
However, both arguments are summarised into the same thing. 14th revision This means that “loyalty” to the United States is required, and undocumented immigrants have broken the law by entering inappropriately, so they cannot demonstrate loyalty. Therefore, their US-born children are not American citizens.
Lash, Barnett, and Wurman may be dressing up their theory in fantasy ways, but they follow the same Tawdry Playbook that Eastman used after the 2020 election. Arrangement Submitting a slate of fake electors to vote for Trump in the states that Biden has won.
The flimsy legal and historical support differed from the 1960 plan that Hawaii sent both John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon electors. Statewide Retool It has grown beyond the dates when electors cast their votes.
Michael Rosin, author of a 1960 dispute paper cited by Chesebro; I explained it His paper did not suggest that the names of competing electors should be sent to Congress without acknowledgement from the state governor. But that’s exactly what Eastman and Chesebro did.
These enthusiastic attempts are trying to consider making discussions, even specks of history and law. No, it’s not Trump. He doesn’t care if he has legal support for his vicious whims.
The audience here are six conservatives from the US Supreme Court. In particular, Samuel Alito’s Justice and Clarence Thomas seem to see themselves as a historical expert. Clearly a false history Justify the cover Roev. Wadeand is engaged in Thomas’ “The Cokes for.” The History of Goldilocks“To extend the second amendment well beyond that split point.
It doesn’t matter how thin these types of analysis are, no matter how wrong. Because they are not intended to stand on their own. They exist as fig leaves. This is how Trump’s most outrageous stance is based on the law.
And it’s really embarrassing to see so many lawyers on board.
Campaign action
