Supreme Court Can Extend Trump’s Term By Up To 3 Years If He’s Acquitted In The Senate
There’s a little-known precedent on the books that Democrats are trying desperately to have removed before the impeachment trial of President Trump begins. In 1974, as Nixon faced impeachment, the Republican Congress passed a law that would allow his term to be extended if he was acquitted.
The law was specific to Nixon, and was set to expire in 5 years, but Nixon resigned. The removal of the law, therefore, never happened.
According to legal analyst and constitutional scholar, Art Tubolls, the fact that the law exists at all sets a precedent:
“The law is very clear. An acquittal, which they were sure they would get until all the facts came to light, would have meant that Nixon’s term was stolen from him, and that three years or less could be added to his time in office without causing a constitutional crisis.
“Because of how Nixon ended his own career and was pardoned, the law was never struck down or removed, meaning it’s still precedent, and only the Supreme Court can take it away.
“Our sources say it would be a 5-4 vote to allow President Trump to go on for another three years, making the next Presidential election due in 2023. Trump would still be eligible to run.
“That may sound extreme and unconstitutional, but only the SCOTUS can determine that, and they are solidly behind Trump, no matter what crimes he’s committed. The office is better with him in it, and that’s all they’re supposed to care about.“
The White House says the president absolutely would request an extension if acquitted because it’s his constitutional right to do so. If the Democrats want to play dirty, they can spend the next three years campaigning and then get a beatdown like they would have in 2020 anyway.
What all of this means is that if the Democrats don’t convince 8 Republican Senators to vote to convict, we’ll be making America Great again for three extra years with no elections to worry about.
God Bless America.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
This sounds like a headline straight out of the babylon bee!
ATTENTION SHEEP: The answer you seek is in the photograph posted with the article.
Seriously, folks… Look at the photograph. This story is rated S for “satire.”
I guess the S explains why Roberts is laughing it up, after telling the world everything is peachy keen with RBG.
Curiouser and curiouser
“That may sound extreme and unconstitutional”
it is.
“but only the SCOTUS can determine that, and they are solidly behind Trump, no matter what crimes he’s committed. The office is better with him in it, and that’s all they’re supposed to care about.“
they’re supposed to be behind the constitution and care about that.
remember, the constitution and the federalism it establishes is meant to limit and distribute power over time, not concentrate it for any one advantage.
Not buying it at all. If true, Slick Willy would have been there an extra 3 years.
Here we go again, the SCOTUS interpreting the constitution instead of the constitution interpreting itself.
“instead of the constitution interpreting itself”
people disagree. building on that, they’ll SAY they disagree if it’s to their advantage. there has to be a decision maker, who by reality operates as he pleases. just the way it is. in a lot of ways the left’s psychotic pursuit of raw power is more realistic than the right’s deference to principles and rules.
“He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years ….”
“…shall not be infringed.”
It’s not like ignoring the Constitution is a new thing.
(laugh) well … the second amendment has been infringed, sure, and with the slowly snowballing consequences that we observe. but it hasn’t been ignored – that’s the reason why the consequences are snowballing slowly. but to just up and tack on three more years to a president’s term would be an outright and blatant disregard for the original constitutional specification – and the consequences spreading from THAT will snowball very rapidly.
whether that’s bad or good I suppose depends on your taste for total governmental decline into incompetent dictatorship ….
Yeah, because another 3 years of hell in Murica and you’re gong to need all the divine help you can get.
Better question: why would He?
The law was specific to Nixon, and was set to expire in 5 years, but Nixon resigned. The removal of the law, therefore, never happened.
There are a lot of reasons SCOTUS would not uphold the 3 additional years:
1. The law was specific to Nixon, not B J Clinton or D J Trump.
2. The law had a sunset provision and is therefore moot.
3. Arbitrarily adding 3 years to the term of a President would create election chaos, when it moves the date of the next election.
4. 22nd Amendment is pretty clear the people want to limit the amount of time a person can occupy the White House. We learned our lesson with FDR.
Technically SCOTUS is the highest Federal criminal and appellate court, with a very narrowly defined jourisdiction. Nowhere in Article III does the Constitution give SCOTUS the power of Judicial Review. SCOTUS gave themselves that power in Marbury V Madison (1803). This power exists nowhere in the Constitution.
THIS was the actual beginning of the end for the Constitutional Republic established by the U.S. Constitution. No branch of government was established to “translate the Constitution”, it was to stand on it’s own. The Judicial branch of government was intentionally left as the weakest branch of government.
” The Judicial branch of government was intentionally left as the weakest branch of government”.
And that explains why John Roberts did such a bang up job with his oversight of the FISA court.
Fake story : there was NO Republican Congress in 1974
Assuming Trump gets acquitted (which isn’t certain – the republicans could try hiding behind a secret ballot), Trump should wait until five minutes after the acquittal and then tweet that he’s going to SCOTUS to get three extra years. Libs would lose their shit.
Well that would cause a solution for “climate change” as many heads on the left explode therefore fewer eaters….
Cannot be true but one could hope
We should act like it’s true, just to drive the Left more insane.
Send this out as a serious news story to all the Liberal media. Watch people combust into flames!
There are plenty of laws that are lawful, but not legal. That means that a legislative body passed a law that is the law of the land but which is not Constitutional and therefore not legal. If the sheep accept the law, then they live by it even though they have no legal obligation to do so. The Constitution defines the length of the Presidents term. Congress cannot change it legally.
Trump has committed no crimes. And God needs to bless America because the evil democrats are trying to destroy America. Maybe only God can save her.