• DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Actually that’s incorrect in terms of the “cannot be altered”. The constitution can be altered via a ratification by 38 / 50 states or 2/3rds of congress. With a supermajority being required, this would mean that the proposed amendment would have to be bipartisan… Which means it’s almost impossible to do, especially nowadays… Unless the country were to take a major shift left or right (or more likely the elections become rigged)

    Last time this happened though was in 1992

    thank goodness because if it was too easy, the “two terms” would have been amended already by the Party of Trump

    No wonder he wants to “federalize elections.” Just look what’s been happening in Nicaragua since 2013 which has finally come to a head (although Ortega’s judges just straight up nullified the term limit…

    On paper the USA SCOTUS cannot do this since they can only interpret …but they can take away teeth to enforce which they have done before… they just can’t straight up say “nah that’ part of the constitution is nullified.” Like what happened in Nicaragua in 2013

    • NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I mean, they’ve already reinterpreted parts of the Constitution to not mean exactly what it says. They can wordsmith their way around the 22nd amendment if enough of them find politically advantageous. I’m sure Alito has a draft ruling already ready to go.