> in fact I said the opposite, that all texts are intrinsically ambiguous but that does not make all interpretations equally sound
Your original comment was this:
> There is absolutely, unambiguously no Constitutional method by which this will ever be true.
So which is it, there's absolutely no ambiguity or there is some?
> And yes, the Presidential immunity argument is exactly one such argument: the pro-dictator cultural movement in the US is significant and vocal, while the anti-dictator movement is full of equivocators like yourself who say, "well you know, the Constitution is a bit ambiguous on this point..."
So you're saying that the Supreme Court ruled Presidential immunity because of vocal public opinion for dictatorship but suddenly the same court won't rule in favor of interpreting the law to support a third term?
Seems contradictory chief. Regardless I personally hope it doesn't come to a court decision but we'll see in 4 years.
I didn't say that SCOTUS won't rule in this direction. In fact, again, my caution indicates I believe the exact opposite: it is very possible they will, which is why we should cede no ground on the "it's ambiguous" argument. It truly is not ambiguous. It is not even ambiguous to the people who are pushing it. Again: everyone knows it's an accounting trick.
Your original comment was this:
> There is absolutely, unambiguously no Constitutional method by which this will ever be true.
So which is it, there's absolutely no ambiguity or there is some?
> And yes, the Presidential immunity argument is exactly one such argument: the pro-dictator cultural movement in the US is significant and vocal, while the anti-dictator movement is full of equivocators like yourself who say, "well you know, the Constitution is a bit ambiguous on this point..."
So you're saying that the Supreme Court ruled Presidential immunity because of vocal public opinion for dictatorship but suddenly the same court won't rule in favor of interpreting the law to support a third term?
Seems contradictory chief. Regardless I personally hope it doesn't come to a court decision but we'll see in 4 years.