“Speaker Johnson says no path for a 3rd Trump term”

A

archives

Verified User
“House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday that he does not "see the path" for President Donald Trump to seek a third term.”

"I think the president knows, and he and I have talked about, the constrictions of the Constitution,” Johnson said during a news conference on Capitol Hill.”

“Last week, Steve Bannon -- a former Trump adviser -- said in an interview with The Economist that there "is a plan" to get Trump a third term, but didn't provide details.”

abcnews.go.com

Speaker Johnson says no 'path' for a 3rd Trump term

The House speaker said he doesn't "see a way to amend the Constitution" to allow for Trump to seek a third term in office.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

What a weasel, he not only stands by but applauds Trump shitting all over the Constitution but now says he and Trump would respect the Constitution, too funny. If tomorrow morning Trump declared he was gong to stay on at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in 2028, declare another one of his bogus national emergencies to ignore the Constitution Johnson would be one of the first in line to praise and defend Trump

In fact, Johnson himself doesn’t give a shit about the Constitution, currently he is denying the citizens of Arizona representation in Congress for now reason other than protection of his master
 
archives said:
“House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday that he does not "see the path" for President Donald Trump to seek a third term.”

"I think the president knows, and he and I have talked about, the constrictions of the Constitution,” Johnson said during a news conference on Capitol Hill.”

“Last week, Steve Bannon -- a former Trump adviser -- said in an interview with The Economist that there "is a plan" to get Trump a third term, but didn't provide details.”

abcnews.go.com

Speaker Johnson says no 'path' for a 3rd Trump term

The House speaker said he doesn't "see a way to amend the Constitution" to allow for Trump to seek a third term in office.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

What a weasel, he not only stands by but applauds Trump shitting all over the Constitution but now says he and Trump would respect the Constitution, too funny. If tomorrow morning Trump declared he was gong to stay on at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in 2028, declare another one of his bogus national emergencies to ignore the Constitution Johnson would be one of the first in line to praise and defend Trump

In fact, Johnson himself doesn’t give a shit about the Constitution, currently he is denying the citizens of Arizona representation in Congress for now reason other than protection of his master
Click to expand...
When has Trump ever given a rat's ass about the constitution?
 
archives said:
“House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday that he does not "see the path" for President Donald Trump to seek a third term.”

"I think the president knows, and he and I have talked about, the constrictions of the Constitution,” Johnson said during a news conference on Capitol Hill.”

“Last week, Steve Bannon -- a former Trump adviser -- said in an interview with The Economist that there "is a plan" to get Trump a third term, but didn't provide details.”

abcnews.go.com

Speaker Johnson says no 'path' for a 3rd Trump term

The House speaker said he doesn't "see a way to amend the Constitution" to allow for Trump to seek a third term in office.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

What a weasel, he not only stands by but applauds Trump shitting all over the Constitution but now says he and Trump would respect the Constitution, too funny. If tomorrow morning Trump declared he was gong to stay on at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in 2028, declare another one of his bogus national emergencies to ignore the Constitution Johnson would be one of the first in line to praise and defend Trump

In fact, Johnson himself doesn’t give a shit about the Constitution, currently he is denying the citizens of Arizona representation in Congress for now reason other than protection of his master
Click to expand...
Poor Mike, well I see somebody that's not invited to Trump's anal Christmas party this year.
 
A few things can be true at the same time.

- I think almost everyone would agree there is no LEGAL or CONSTITUTIONAL mechanism for Trump to get a third term
- I also think almost everyone would agree that would not stop Trump trying just as he broke the law and defied the Constitution in trying to steal the 2020 election and had he pulled it off he would have gave no fucks about the laws or Constitution he broke
- So that means we should all expect him to try and we should all be appalled by the actions he will take

Lastly,

- this also serves to push off, or slow down, the growing perception of him as a lame duck POTUS, the closer to 2028 we get which is where other Magats, vying to be the next face of Magats would start to try and separate themselves from Trump and make the case as to why they, and not other magats are the future.

The above is EXACTLY what Marjorie Greene is trying to establish now, as she becomes a growing voice saying 'these Magat policies are actually betraying and harming the base we campaigned to help'.

She can see a wave of growing magat base resentment at Trump and Co as the cuts really start to hit their pocket books and she wants to pick up where Trump and Co diverged. She is increasingly saying louder 'they failed you but i can bring us back to our promises', while pointing at all around Trump as the ones to blame (her competition in the next Primaries) and not blaming Trump directly, as she needs the magats to not turn on her.
 
FastLane said:
No one is shocked about Presidents only getting 3 terms. So I'm mocking you for starting a thread on it

:cheers:
Click to expand...
Steve Bannon doesn’t think so, nor apparently little Mike

And Trump himself is still talking about it and even has 2028 merchandise on display in the White House

Given the extremes Trump went to in 2020 trying to maintain power with only two months of planning, imagine with eight years to scheme and conspire what he has in mind
 
FastLane said:
When he follows Federal Judges rulings. Unlike Biden who said he would find a way around the SCOTUS ruling on student loans.
Click to expand...
LIE.

When a Judge or Justice rules, 'You cannot do that (build that there as the local building code does not allow it) and you instead look at their ruling and see not just what it blocks but what it allows for, (building the same structure a block away), that IS NOT "finding a way around" judges or Justices.

Many rulings, especially in the dissent give very direct instructions as to why they blocked it one way but might allow it another. Clarence Thomas and Alito do that often on the right wing things rejected by the SC.


A stupid person, ie you, says thinks if the SC says you cannot do it one way that means you cannot do it any way and THAT HAS NEVER been the case.
 
FastLane said:
When he follows Federal Judges rulings. Unlike Biden who said he would find a way around the SCOTUS ruling on student loans.
Click to expand...
So Trump doesn’t follow the Constitution until a Federal Judge tells him? And even that is incorrect because the first thing Trump does Is attack the Judge and immediately file an appeal to his SCOTUS

And what of the all the other times he has ignored the Constitution, ie, redirecting Congressional appropriated funds, seizing full authority over tariffs, denying due process, dismantling independent agencies created by Congress, overriding 14th Amendment, making military troops commonplace on American soil, etc., etc., etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
archives said:
“House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday that he does not "see the path" for President Donald Trump to seek a third term.”

"I think the president knows, and he and I have talked about, the constrictions of the Constitution,” Johnson said during a news conference on Capitol Hill.”
Click to expand...
Libtards are STILL freaking out about this?! Seriously?! :rofl2:

While there's technically a few ways that Trump could "get a third term", I doubt that any of them would actually happen and I doubt that he's seriously interested in it. It's quite fun to troll the emotional-basketcase libtards about it though.

Heck, even without "a third term", he could possibly be appointed as a "trade czar" by the next President.
 
archives said:
So Trump doesn’t follow the Constitution until a Federal Judge tells him? And even that is incorrect because the first thing Trump does Is attack the Judge and immediately file an appeal to his SCOTUS

And what of the all the other times he has ignored the Constitution, ie, redirecting Congressional appropriated funds, seizing full authority over tariffs, denying due process, dismantling independent agencies created by Congress, overriding 14th Amendment, making military troops commonplace on American soil, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...
The only true thing that can stop Trump is our equally strong 2 branches....the judges and both houses. Mike J. can put Trump to rest in one hot minute, but we don't have that....that's why we must must must must must take back the congress and the senate in 2026
 
archives said:
So Trump doesn’t follow the Constitution until a Federal Judge tells him? And even that is incorrect because the first thing Trump does Is attack the Judge and immediately file an appeal to his SCOTUS

And what of the all the other times he has ignored the Constitution, ie, redirecting Congressional appropriated funds, seizing full authority over tariffs, denying due process, dismantling independent agencies created by Congress, overriding 14th Amendment, making military troops commonplace on American soil, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...
And most of the time he follows them and appeals and the majority of times he wins.

  • 17 Supreme Court stays or orders to vacate lower court orders
  • 1 Supreme Court affirmation of a lower court order
  • 7 suits where judges ruled for the federal government in a summary judgement or by dismissing a suit
 
archives said:
Steve Bannon doesn’t think so, nor apparently little Mike

And Trump himself is still talking about it and even has 2028 merchandise on display in the White House

Given the extremes Trump went to in 2020 trying to maintain power with only two months of planning, imagine with eight years to scheme and conspire what he has in mind
Click to expand...
Steve Bannon is wrong. Big Deal

Trump is trolling you and you took the bait. :laugh:
 
archives said:
So Trump doesn’t follow the Constitution until a Federal Judge tells him?
Click to expand...

Is Trump the first POTUS who's been ruled against by a federal judge?

archives said:
And even that is incorrect because the first thing Trump does Is attack the Judge and immediately file an appeal to his SCOTUS
Click to expand...

That's his right.

archives said:
And what of the all the other times he has ignored the Constitution, ie, redirecting Congressional appropriated funds,
Click to expand...

To pay the troops?

archives said:
seizing full authority over tariffs,
Click to expand...

Presidents have that authority.

archives said:
denying due process,
Click to expand...

When?

archives said:
dismantling independent agencies created by Congress,
Click to expand...

Whether a president has been "guilty of dismantling" independent agencies is a complex question with no single answer, as different administrations have faced accusations of undermining these bodies. Historically, the Supreme Court has generally upheld the independence of multi-member agencies, but recent rulings have weakened protections for some that are led by a single director. The issue depends heavily on legal interpretation and political perspective.
Key legal rulings on independent agencies
The primary legal battleground involves the president's power to remove agency heads, a central mechanism for controlling their independence.
  • Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935): The Supreme Court established a crucial precedent when it ruled that a president could not remove a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner for political reasons. The court distinguished between purely executive officials, whom a president can remove at will, and leaders of independent agencies that perform "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial" functions.
  • Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was unconstitutional. It determined that giving a single director significant executive power with for-cause removal protections violated the separation of powers. The court severed the for-cause removal provision, making the director removable by the president at will.
  • Trump v. Wilcox (May 2025): The Supreme Court issued a preliminary ruling in this case, pending further litigation. It allowed a president to remove leaders at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board without cause while their cases challenging the removals proceeded through lower courts. This ruling was viewed as further eroding the precedent from Humphrey's Executor by diluting protections for leaders of independent federal agencies.
Accusations regarding presidential actions
Recent presidents have been accused of undermining independent agencies through various methods:
  • Targeting independent agency leaders: Some administrations have fired independent agency leaders without the legally required cause, or they have let seats sit vacant to prevent the agencies from operating effectively.
  • Exerting control over agency operations: Efforts have been made to increase White House control over the day-to-day operations and funding of independent agencies.
  • Executive orders: Legal challenges have been filed against executive orders that attempt to extend presidential authority over independent agencies, such as President Trump's "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" order in 2025.
Political perspective
The interpretation of these actions is often partisan:
  • Critics often frame such moves as an "assault" on independent agencies that were designed to safeguard public interests without political interference.
  • From another perspective, strengthening presidential authority over agencies is a way to ensure accountability and align the executive branch with the will of the elected president.
The issue of presidential control over independent agencies has been in contention for nearly a century, but recent court decisions and executive actions show that the debate continues.

archives said:
overriding 14th Amendment,
Click to expand...

When?

archives said:
making military troops commonplace on American soil, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...

Is Trump the only POTUS to deploy the National Guard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top