Being suspicious of kings isn’t just the motivation for trendy protests, it is a value that goes to the heart of American values. That’s part of the reason that we have the 22nd Amendment. Whether or not you think FDR’s terms were good or bad for the country, there’s a general consensus that FDR being elected president four times was two times too many — there’s a point where presidential terms risk becoming longstanding reigns without some convenient cut-off mechanism. Under normal circumstances, that enshrined constitutional value would prevent ego-driven reality TV stars from setting up shop for too long in the White House. Unfortunately we aren’t under normal circumstances. Things are so weird that DOJ lawyers seem to just take it as a given that Trump will be serving a third time. Bloomberg Law has coverage:
Lawyers arguing Monday in front of a Sixth Circuit panel—including one Justice Department attorney—made apparent references to President Donald Trump serving a third term, after the president said that he’d “love” to run for one.
Attorney Robert J. Olson first told the three judges on the Cincinnati-based court that a new administration will be in place “in three years or in seven years.” Then, when DOJ attorney Sean R. Janda argued, he repeated a variation of that line, talking about a change that may occur, “as my friend on the other side said, three years in the future or seven years in the future.”
None of the judges pressed either attorney on those statements.
Not to tell an honorable judicial panel how to do their job or anything, but that would have been a great time to interrupt and point at the 22nd Amendment in your well-read and readily available pocket Constitution! Not one of them raised a hand or asked for clarification?
Goes to show it pays to pay attention to talking heads and alt-right strategists — this administration’s gap between fantasy and policy is rapidly shrinking. Remember the Fox News interviewer playfully hinting at the 22nd Amendment’s black-and-white language having a bit of wiggle room? Or Steve Bannon’s matter-of-fact statement that there are ways to deal with the 22nd Amendment?:
Open defiance of the Constitution is something judges should nip in the bud instead of letting lawyers carry on as if nothing controversial happened.
Third Trump Term Raised By DOJ, Opposing Lawyer At Argument (1) [Bloomberg Law]
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who is learning to swim, is interested in critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.
The post DOJ Attorney Handwaves The 22nd Amendment During Oral Argument appeared first on Above the Law.