this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
1234 points (98.4% liked)
Funny
15736 readers
666 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.