So, it's a coloring book.

He's a waste of skin.

and this again..................

Dershowitz is in the Epstein files.

You think the Oval Office is ugly now? Just imagine that fetid, rotting corpse sitting there while his sycophantic cabinet fawns over it.

Wait....that's already happening.

He would be so humiliated when Obama kicked his ass in an election

but the words "elected to the office" provide a workaround to assume the presidency.

since I don't think he was actually *elected* to office, so much as cheated his way in.

I could see them coming up with some bullshit like, “Congress only meant two consecutive terms”.

Hopefully, all speculation will be moot because Trump will die in the next three years. …on the toilet with an unfinished tweet on his phone.

But the text specifically states that "no person shall be elected" which creates a loophole.

If a sitting VP were to resign, Trump could be appointed VP. The sitting President could then resign, making Trump the President. This is the exact path that took Gerald Ford to the White House.

Without an election there's no way to invoke the 22nd amendment.

Once he got in for the third term, he simply ordered his legislature to change the rule. It's been Putin ever since.

So Trump, Clinton, Bush, and Obama can't be elected to VP either. But what you say is interesting. If he is appointed VP, he's not elected.

House Speaker is another way, and if the President and VP resign he would be President again. But that's too Hollywood.

1) Trump can argue that he isn’t a “person”
a) “I’m a corporation!”
b) Admits he’s an alien from a distant galaxy
c) Surgery renders him 51% AUI (Artificial
Un-Intellegence)

2) They can argue that he wasn’t really elected vs Harris in 2024 because he stole the election

Did you leave it out?

He decided against running for political reasons, but he would have been constitutionally allowed another term if he'd been re-elected.

LBJ as Vice President, came to the Presidency in November 1963 when JFK was assassinated. So he finished out JFK's term for 1.2 years, then he was re-elected in 1964 for a 4-year term. By 1968 the country was embroiled in Vietnam and LBJ was knee-deep in that failure. With the Southern states defecting to the GOP as well as anti-Vietnam protests all over the country, LBJ felt that he wouldn't have won re-election in 1968, and he was probably right. That's why he stepped back and let the Democratic Party choose another candidate to run against Nixon. We all know what happened then.

Chump's situation is altogether different. His time will be up in January 2029 and he will pack up and leave the White House. There are two alternatives to this reality: he can resign now, or he can be carried out in a box.

Hw is that unclear? It doesn't get any more clear than that. Any lawyer who tries to argue otherwise should be immediately disbarred.

... may have been interpreted by Dershowitz to rival Professor Irwin Corey's gibberish when trying to decipher its meaning, thus providing a space for leverage to shoehorn a particle of doubt into a discussion of the viability of Trump's shot at a third term. He'll probably try it.

ONE

TWO

DONE!

Dershowitz?

What a load of crap

He kept his underpants on!!!

Good gawd...

Is he still claiming a "massage-only in his tidy whities" at the Epstein mansion? I dare a reporter to ignore his "legal" analysis
( ) and ask him. If I were to use my imagination (not uninformed, however), I would wonder if this little bone thrown to Trump in "undying loyalty," might be in hopes that any more Epstein matter that involves Dershowitz gets buried? Just a hunch, mind you, but...

I'm not in favor of the restriction. In extraordinary times of upheaval, why restrict voters' choices? FDR, 1940. The New Deal was popular. 1944 - WWII. Reagan might have been elected 3 times, though the S&L crisis was a problem. Without a 2x rule, Obama would have whomped Trump in 2016.

I'd not be in favor of chicanery though. No elect Vance so he can resign and appoint Trump. Does anyone think he'll be cognizant in 2028?

Did the Founding Father really believe Amendments were Constitutional?

...Mr Obama campaign.

me too.

though I imagine they are thinking of the scenario where Dump runs as VP and gets elected and then the sucker who was elected POTUS resigns, making Dump POTUS again. Just grotesque and stupid.

Why is Dersh giving him a handbook on how to flout the Constitution?
What's in it for him. No sane person would do that for the sake of the country.

Just another sex pervert in thrall to Putin.

Then we should nominate Obama

Does everyone in Mierda47's circle lie with impunity?
Ooops, I'm sorry, graggy morning got to me.

Alan DoochebagOWitz is a Lawyer? Captain Underpants and General Bonespur get together to discuss Constitutional Law. Cool..... Maybe Trump will appoint him to the Supreme Court.

This country is fucked.

surround Trump, and tell him he should have a third term.

If you are wearing your tighty whities and only when you are wearing them over you head





✌🏻

ZERO credibility

The constitutional restriction is on being *elected*, not on *serving*. So for instance, with control of the house, they could run a couple stooges as president and vice president. The house elects Donnie speaker of the house. The stooges are sworn in and immediately resign. The vacancy is filled with the speaker of the house, so Donnie becomes president by succession without ever being elected to a third term.

The Supreme Court absolutely would uphold this.

It's completely against the *intent* of the term limits amendment, but republicans don't care about that, at least not when it suits them to ignore such things.


Fortunately, it's starting to look like Donnie and his image may fall apart before then....

trump is a lame duck and cannot be POTUS again

His run would be a Weekend at Bernie's campaign.

Like the old caudillos.

advice from would be "I kept my underwear on" Dirtballwits.

He should get a Kaddafi type of ending.

Crawling from the wreckage of the Ballroom, he enters the sewer system to avoid the angry crowds. And gets shived by a homeless guy.

Napoleon was supposed to be crowned Emperor by Pope Urban VII, who agreed to do so after having seen Pope Urban VI die in one of Napoleon's jails. That angle seems familiar to Trmp.

Seriously, look for some declaration of "National Emergency" which will allow him to be appointed by a rump faction of Congress, meeting behind closed doors, or by a rightist majority of the Extreme Court.

That way the 22nd amendment does not apply because he only got elected president twice.

The 22nd Amendment is SPECIFIC!!

NO 3rd terms!!!!

Trump saying he would read a book.

Obama vs Trump 2028

executive and a lovely, smart, educated wife back in the WH. I'd take the Obamas back any day over the Dark Triad idiot and his heartless russian mistress.

One sees contrarians across Academia. These are people who really like the attention they get by adopting a point of view that's at odds with the consensus.

Contrarians are different from crackpots and denialists. Crackpots and denialists actually believe what they say. Contrarians often don't. Or they don't care, at any rate. It's about the attention. If the consensus moves in another direction, they'll switch and adopt the position the consensus just abandoned.

Obviously, contrarians can sometimes make money by writing books or going on the lecture circuit. They might also show up as cable news talking heads. These presumably help cement a contrarian's standpoint, but it's the attention that matters. "Look at me! I'm controversial!"

That said - this stuff about a third term is plainly contrary not only to the consensus among Constitutional law scholars, but to the Constitution itself. There's no gray area. Anyone with the basic ability to read and write can see this.

I'm beginning to wonder if there's more than just contrarianism going on with him. Is it money? A desire to be close to power? Something organic? Has he switched columns from "contrarian" to "quack?" I don't know.

-----

In my own field, there was a small community of academics in the 1980's through early oughts we sometimes called the "Flat Earth Society." These were people who could not accept that birds are living theropod dinosaurs. They called themselves the BAND (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs).

The evidence that birds are dinosaurs is as conclusive as that showing human beings are mammals, and it hasn't been treated as controversial since around 1990, but these few dug in their heels. New evidence would be dismissed or explained away with increasingly convoluted and decreasingly parsimonious arguments, some of which crumbled when more evidence came up. When the first non-bird dinosaur with evidence for feathers was found in the mid 1990's, they argued that the feathers (which were short fibers resembling fur or down) were actually internal collagenous fibers that were exposed as the animal decayed. But then they found a non-bird theropod with actual vaned feathers - not short fuzz, but actual feathers with a rachis and barbs. The explanation? A bird had died, and then a dead dinosaur had fallen on top of it. That lasted until they found several more of the feathered non-birds. Eventually, they began to claim that these animals - animals they'd sworn up and down couldn't be related to birds - were, in fact, birds that had evolved to look just like non-bird dinosaurs.

Most BAND members were crackpots. They were true believers. But there was one whose opinions were so bizarre that we wondered if his motivations were different. He would make claims that anyone with a single class in comparative anatomy could see were silly. I once moderated a session at a professional meeting, and he was the last speaker. His words were being contradicted by his own slides. The other moderator and I sometimes glanced at each other with a look of dismay; I mean, was this dude really saying what we thought he'd said? Why didn't he just turn around and look at the bloody pictures behind him? The ones he'd set up for his talk? Did his students consider an intervention? It was madness.

Some of us suggested that people studying bird origins should spend a few months claiming that they were wrong all the time, and that birds are related to extinct crocodile relatives or some other extinct reptile, but not dinosaurs. Most of the BANDers would throw a massive "I Told You So!" party, but that one outlier would probably start insisting that birds must be dinosaurs.

This type of contrarianism, at least, was harmless. What Dershowitz sometimes does is not.

He's badly compromised. He said he got an Epstein massage, but his underwear remained on.

It predates the time when anyone even cared.

Besides - I see contrarians like him in my own field. He fits the pattern.

... is an obnoxious tub of verbal vomit. The Constitution says NO. Period. I'm sure the six corrupt Republican shitgibbons currently defiling the SCOTUS will try to grease the skids for him if he tries to run a game on America, but it could well turn out to be their final step off the impeachment cliff. America will only tolerate so much from these dishonorable skidmarks.

Alan "Underwear" Dershowitz



Etc., infinity.

It was put in to hurt Democrats, and it has done its job twice: Clinton would have easily won in 2000, as would Obama in 2016. Repeal it now. This is the best chance we have ever had for bi-partisan repeal.

He was pretty popular when he left office.

We got Poppy Bush anyway in 1988.

Is just trying to get his name redacted from their Epstein files

😐

✌🏻