In response to reporter questions, Donald Trump didn’t rule out serving a third term, which set off a nearly anaphylactic media reaction that that would violate the Constitution.
Whether Donald Trump SHOULD attempt a third term as President is one thing. But whether he COULD is a different question. And the reporters – shocking – mostly got it wrong.
There is no doubt Trump can’t be elected a third time to the office of the President – that’s clearly barred by the 22nd Amendment.
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once….”
But that Amendment only prevents being elected a third time to the office of the President, not serving a third time.
I’m so old I remember when the idea of Obama running as Biden’s VP in 2024 – or a substitute candidate’s VP – was floated. The concept was that Obama gets elected VP, then the President resigns and Obama becomes President for a third term. It never happened, but it could have.
Prof. Emeritus John Bonzaf of George Washington Law School (follow him on X at @profbanzhaf) has this analysis, which we are running with his permission:
Trump Could Serve a 3rd Term Under “Plan C”
Law Professors’ Tactic Would Make It Constitutional
WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 2, 2025) – Although most major media outlets continue to report that a third presidential term for Donald Trump would violate the Constitution, “Plan C” – which was originally conceived as a way to save the Democratic Party – would work as well if not better for the Republicans because it avoids the constitutional impediments, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf and many other constitutional experts.
These experts include law professors Dan Coenen, Michael Dorf, Bruce Peabody, three former White House lawyers, and an analysis published on the popular legal website AboveTheLaw. Professor Banzhaf’s detailed constitutional analysis is spelled out in detail here, and is summarized below.
If Trump persuaded the Republican party to nominate a “straw” (token or nominal) candidate for president and him as its vice presidential candidate, and both assured the public that the straw would resign immediately after being sworn in, Trump could become president by succession – thereby avoiding the constitutional restriction upon being “elected” for a third term, says Banzhaf.
Under Banzhaf’s original “Plan C,” Biden would have remained the Democratic nominee for president in 2024, but Barack Obama would be listed as its candidate for vice president. Then Biden would announce beforehand that he would resign immediately after becoming president, so that Obama could then assume the high office; thus voters would effectively have been given a choice in 2024 for the next president between Trump and Obama.
This proposal would have avoided the indignity and other problems of forcing Biden to withdraw from the race, and of running a weak and largely unknown Kamala Harris for president. Instead, the real Democratic presidential contender would have been Obama who – unlike Harris – was very well known and widely popular.
Although very widely publicized, Banzhaf’s “Plan C” wasn’t adopted. Had the 2024 presidential race been effectively between Trump and Obama as Banzhaf had suggested, Trump might not have been elected, and the makeup of the new congress might also have been different, suggests Banzhaf.
The 22nd Amendment, which is most frequently cited as a bar to Trump ever serving as president again, doesn’t, Banzhaf argues, as least according to its carefully crafted and very narrow exclusionary language The amendment says in full:
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of the President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” [emphasis added]
So while this amendment may bar Trump from “being elected” to the office of president again, it obviously and by its clear language doesn’t prohibit him from being elected as vice president, and subsequently becoming president by succession without ever being “elected” to the office again.
Those who argue to the contrary ignore the key word “elected” and, in interpreting the Constitution, every word must be given weight, notes Banzhaf.
But this brings up the 12th Amendment which, Banzhaf suggests, likewise doesn’t bar Trump from running for vice president along with a straw or token presidential candidate.
It provides that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” [emphasis added]
But, according to the overly precise language deliberately and carefully chosen by the drafters, while Trump cannot “be elected to the office of the President,” there’s nothing to say that he cannot be elected to the office of the Vice President, and then succeed to the presidency if the straw resigns after winning and being sworn in.
In other words, Trump is not now “ineligible to the office of President” and therefore ineligible to run for Vice President, because he is only ineligible to be “elected” to the office of the president, not ineligible to attain the office by succession.
Article Two explains who is “eligible” to the office of president: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” [emphasis added]
So the phrase in the 12th Amendment relating to anyone “ineligible to the office of President” – as clearly different from the language in the 22nd Amendment “elected to the office” – means simply than anyone who is under 35 or not a citizen or not a 14+ resident of the U.S. is “ineligible” to the office of either president or vice president.
Such an analysis may to some seem strained, but the drafters obviously chose not to use clear language simply prohibiting someone from serving more than two terms as president. As law professor Dorf explained:
“‘The 22nd Amendment, to my mind, is a sort of stand-alone provision,’ he continued. And that provision says ‘elected.’ ‘The drafters of this language knew the difference between getting elected to an office and holding an office. They could have just said ‘no person may hold the office of president more than twice.’ But they didn’t.’”
And while “Plan C” probably isn’t exactly what the drafters could have anticipated, and therefore it may seem strange, but a careful literal analysis of the language – especially employing the literalism and/or originalism favored by many of the Supreme Court’s justices – shows that Trump is not constitutionally barred from running for vice president and then becoming president by succession, argues Banzhaf, who has won several constitutional law cases.
It also makes it less likely that a majority-conservative Supreme Court with three Trump appointees would vote to prevent Trump from being listed on ballots as the Democratic Party’s nominee for vice president, or to prevent his succession to the higher office if the person elected president resigns.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
No. Nobody is going for this argument any more that they were when Obama used it. Pass the torch, move on.
This argument is serving to drive Dems nuts, that is its merit.
Exactly. Make them eat the corn out of their own shit.
“Trump is driving the Dems nuts!! Ha ha ha!!!”
“The Dems are energized, and are beating us in the special elections!!! Boo hoo hoo!!!”
Get a clue, guys.
I’m sorry but this is nonsense. It was nonsense when applied to 0bama and it would be nonsense applied to Trump. The flaw here is that you and Banzhaf are both ignoring the meaning of the word “eligible”.
“Eligible” means “capable of being elected”. That is simply what the word means. And the twelfth amendment says explicitly that anyone who cannot be elected president can also not be elected vice president.
From dictionary.com:
eligible
First recorded in 1555–65; from Middle French or directly from Late Latin ēligibilis, equivalent to Latin ē- “out of, from” + lig- (combining form of leg-, stem of legere “to choose, select”) + –bilis “capable of, susceptible of, tending to”; e- 1, -ible
And elect
First recorded in 1250–1300; Middle English, from Latin ēlēctus “chosen” (past participle of ēligere ), equivalent to ē- “out of, from” + leg- “choose” + –tus past participle suffix; e- 1, elite
So you see they are two forms of the same word. “Electable” isn’t a real word, or at least it’s not the word anyone in the 18th century would have used; the correct word is “eligible”, and that’s the word they used in the 12th amendment.
I definitely agree that Trump can run for third term as president and Can run as the VP.
I havent pursued the constitution in sufficient detail to arrive at the conclusion that he cant become vice president via some other method and then become president.
That being said, just floating the idea is political insanity for him and the GOP.
I think you meant to type “can’t”, not “can”.
correct – typo on my part
not surprising on this blog, I get 4 up votes because no one noticed the typo and thought I meant trump could serve a 3rd term
“no one noticed the typo”
When you make it twice in succession, both times negating your actual argument, it’s hard to argue that anyone else should have “noticed” that.
Also left out from the discussion is whether States would allow Trump on the ballot. Jonathan Turley wrote a great piece on this
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/04/03/hiding-elephants-in-mouseholes-why-a-third-term-for-trump-is-not-likely/
A ten-year old is capable of being elected president. What bar exists preventing people from voting for him? But the constitution says he is ineligible regardless if the people or Electors want him.
age 35 constituional requirement
A ten-year-old is not capable of being elected, because the constitution says so. Electors aren’t allowed to vote for him, and if they do their votes are not counted.
So full of yourself that it isn’t even funny anymore.
NO.
“Capable of being elected” is NOT the definition of “eligible”, not even according to Dictionary.com, thee source that you (conveniently) quoted only partially.
Dictionary.com
————————-
eligible
adjective
1-
fit or proper to be chosen; worthy of choice; desirable:
to marry an eligible bachelor
Synonyms: suitable, fitting
Antonyms: unacceptable, unsuitable, ineligible
2-
meeting the stipulated requirements, as to participate, compete, or work; qualified.
3-
legally qualified to be elected or appointed to office:
eligible for the presidency.
———————————————————————-
Merrian – Webster
——————
eligible
adjective
1-
a
: qualified to participate or be chosen
eligible to retire
b
: permitted under football rules to catch a forward pass
2-
: worthy of being chosen
an eligible young bachelor
eligible
2 of 2
noun
pluraleligibles
: a person or thing that is qualified or permitted to do or be something
: one that is eligible for something
———————————————————————-
But they had a common root word in the middle ages!
You’re an idiot.
First of all, “eligible” means “capable of being elected”. That is what it means, and it’s the only “real” word that means that. “Electable” is first recorded in 1875, and it’s only a word because people use it. The people who drafted the 12th amendment had no other word but “eligible” to describe someone who is capable of being elected.
That is why I cited the etymology of the two words, to show that they have the same root and thus refer to the same thing.
Second, even if we were to take your nonsensical objection at face value, you’ve only made it worse for yourself. According to you not only can someone who can’t be elected ineligible, so is someone who could be elected but can’t be appointed! You’ve expanded the meaning of “ineligible” not contracted it. So you’ve made things even worse for Trump (and 0bama)! What a maroon.
The meaning of the 12th Amendment’s “eligible” must be that which it had at the time the amendment was ratified. Because at that time “eligibility” wasn’t limited limited by having already served two terms, the meaning of the word in the 12th Amendment can’t be retconned into a reference to the as yet non-existent 22nd Amendment. (That is, prior to the ratification of the 22nd Amendment, it couldn’t possibly have been interpreted to refer to a term limit that didn’t exist.) And, as explained, the issue could have been conclusively settled by barring future service as POTUS, rather than to being elected POTUS, but such language wasn’t used, so “eligible” must be interpreted within the sense it was used at the time of the adoption of the 12th Amendment, as a reference to earlier eligibility requirements in the Constitution.
The 22nd amendment makes the 2 term limit part of the eligibility
The word “eligible,” like every other word in the Constitution, must be interpreted to mean what it meant at the time of its use. After the 12th Amendment was ratified, and before the ratification of the 22nd Amendment, the former’s “eligible” couldn’t possibly have referred to a limit/disqualification that didn’t yet exist. I give you FDR, four times elected POTUS. FDR could not have been limited to being elected twice because the 12th Amendment’s “eligibility” couldn’t have referred to non-existent term limits.
Amendments amend foregoing text. That’s what they do, by definition.
If an amendment disagrees with foregoing text, the amendment always wins. That’s how they work, again by definition.
Another moron heard from. Your approach to constitutional interpretation here is absolutely moronic and obviously invalid.
Of course “eligible” in the 12th amendment means now what it meant then. It meant then someone who can be elected, and it still means that. Someone who had already been elected twice was then eligible. Now he is not. Therefore he is now ineligible within the meaning of the 12th.
You are arguing that “ineligible” in the 12th amendment can only mean those people who were ineligible when it was ratified. Well, Trump wasn’t eligible in 1804 because he wasn’t born yet. Nor was Vance. So according to you neither of them is eligible to the vice presidency! How stupid would that be?
The next necessary conclusion from your argument is that the first amendment doesn’t apply to linotype or photo offset presses, let alone laser printers or the world wide web, and that the second amendment doesn’t apply to Colt handguns, let alone AR-1`5s.
No. “Speech”, “press”, and “arms” all mean the same things they did in the 1790s, but they’re not limited to the things that existed then. An AR-15 fits the definition of “arms” as it was used then, so it’s covered. A laser printer or a web site fit the definition of a “press” as it was used then, so they’re covered. And the rules of eligibility as they exist now fit the definition of “eligible” as it was used in 1804, so they’re covered. Should the constitution one day be amended to say that nobody whose last name begins with a T can be elected president, then the 12th would automatically make them ineligible for the vice presidency too.
You are usually better than this. Have you been drinking?
Talking through your usual orifice.
Maybe you should give it a rest and let your mouth get a few words in.
Tell us , o infernal orifice, what the opinions of anyone in the 18 century or before have to do with an amendment written in the 20th?
Because it is the 22nd, and not the 12th which is relevant here.
No, it is not the 22nd that’s relevant here, but the 12th. The 22nd makes Trump and 0bama both ineligible to the presidency. The 12th makes them therefore ineligible to the vice presidency.
Have you considered the fact that, when the Twelfth Amendment was adopted, Article 2 was already part of the Constitution? That fact means that when the Twelfth Amendment spoke of “eligibility” to hold the office of Vice President, the drafters and those approving adoption of the amendment would have understood that term to have the meaning given to it by Article 2. Article 2 speaks of only citizenship, age, and residency. It contains nothing about numbers of terms. Therefore, I must disagree with you.
That’s idiotic. That’s exactly the same thing as arguing that modern presses are not protected by the first amendment and modern arms are not protected by the second. When the 12th speaks of eligibility it means the criteria for election to the presidency as they exist at any given time. If a person for any reason is not eligible to the presidency, then the 12th says he is also ineligible to the vice presidency.
With respect, I consider “eligible” as “capable of serving”. Not “capable of being elected”.
And Humpty Dumpty considered “glory” to mean “a knock-down argument”, but he was wrong.
That’s why I cited a convenient dictionary to show the relationship between “elect” and “eligible”.
And lest anyone bring up the other way a president can supposedly have a third term — become speaker of the house and then have the president and vice president resign or removed, that doesn’t really work either. In case both the presidency and vice presidency are vacant, the person Congress has provided by law — currently the speaker of the house — does not become president, but merely acts as president until a president is elected, presumably at the next general election. So he might be able to finagle a term as acting president, but not as president.
Well, acting President is functionally the same as President, right?
Oh sure, it would give the historians something to argue about for decades to come, he would be effectively President. Which would likely be all Trump cared about (though he might spout a lot about your point), I think.
*but he would be…
Biden proved that “chief of staff” is functionally the same as President.
It may be functionally the same, but it isn’t the same. He would not be “Mr President” but “Mr Acting President”. And the constitution is ambiguous about whether an early election could somehow be called. Probably not, but someone would surely try it.
Hey everybody. Wave. Wave bye bye to jacobsen’s credibility. Maybe next he can write an article on how trump can deport anybody he wants. Or how the 2020 election was stolen. I hope he at least gets a nice autographed red hat from the felon in chief.
Ah. A failure at reading comprehension.
Or are you just generally a failure at everything?
Hey, he’s wrong on this but he’s only quoting Banzhaf. Do you agree that Banzhaf has lost his credibility?! I don’t think so. I doubt you would even agree that Tribe has lost his credibility. So if Banzhaf still has his credibility then a fortiori Jacobson, who is merely quoting him, retains his.
Milhouse finally puts his pedantry to excellent use.
Applying logic to a troll’s comment is hardly worth your effort in posting.
I upvoted you to stand apart from the crowd, and reinforce the fact that you are not only a troll, but a lame one at that.
Why is anyone wasting time on this nonsense? There’s serious work to do and the GOPe Congress is asleep at the switch, as usual.
💯
Political commentary is like love. It can be spouted endlessly and the supply never decreases. We still have plenty of things to think and say about more weighty issues; there’s no need to ration our thoughts.
Trump isn’t “running” for a third term. This is just silly. Trump never says no, and the media never learns. Ask Trump if he would nuke California to stop the wildfires and he would say “nothing is off the table”, but we all know he wouldn’t nuke California.
And this backdoor idea for serving a third term is nonsensical.
“The media never learns.”
Neither does Trump, to shut his big, stupid mouth. Trump should have laughed in the reporter’s face, and replied “Read 22A”.
Dude, go play with your poop somewhere else. You boor me.
On what authority are you commanding me to cease posting in this comment section? If Professor Jacobson has designated you as the Commissar in charge of maintaining the ideological purity of this echo chamber, please show where he did so.
Ork! Ork!
appoint him speaker of the house instead.
grr hit submit on accident.
appoint him speaker so he can do house business NOT for sliding into potus spot.
He would be terrible at it. And miserable.
When Trump was asked about serving a third term, he should have just laughed in the reporter’s face.
He went one better than that, he told them something that would trigger lefties and make them cry 😂😂
Only within echo chambers like the LI comment sections is Trump applauded for wasting his time triggering lefties while the world burns.
The more leftists are triggered, the less time they have for mischief. Win-win.
Trump knows how to trigger you leftists, doesn’t he?
He should have said, “I’m ALREADY serving my third term.”
And then added, “I won’t be eligible to be POTUS again. Read 22A — that’s what it’s for: so that no one will serve more than 2 terms.”
That would have ended it.
Try reading the article.
None of Trump’s answers ever satisfy the MSM. Given that, it’s more fun for him to use them as chew-toys.
Exactly. The media are bad faith trolls. There’s no profit for accepting their frame. They will always lie and distort everything you say.
I agree. He holds them in well-deserved contempt.
And I’m sure he knows very well that there’s no way for him to get a third term. I’m sure he’s already had his people look into it and they’ve told him so. So he’s just having fun.
Trump is a master Troll ..;.
this is just another way of ..
“as I was saying about .. look squirrel!”
If you really want to get into the weeds: Does the Secretary of Veterans Affairs have to meet the Constitution’s eligibility requirements since that office is on the succession list. So why should the No. 2 spot hold a higher constitutional requirement than the No. `17?
The framers of the 22nd chose the words “elected” wisely.
Yes and those not eligible to be elected President are also not eligible to be VP.
It’s got nothing to do with it being “the No. 2 spot”. Someone who can’t be elected president can’t be elected vice president because the 12th amendment says so, and for no other reason.
Like the Kenyans third-term, but without the catastrophe….
Trump.
Troll level +4.235k
He says things as misdirection and I love it! Get your panties out of a wad, he is baiting you into a frenzy!
And they are falling for it like the idiots they are.
Trump should agree with Jill Biden that Joe got stabbed in the back in 2024 and run on a unity ticket with Joe at the top. Joe gets elected again and then Trump takes over under the 25th Amendment.
ROFL! Even better!
u owe me a monitor …. lol
😀
Yeah, see my earlier explanation for why that’s impossible. Trump can’t be elected vice president or president, so the best he could do would be Acting President, by being appointed to the position that Congress has made third in line (which is currently speaker of the house) and then having both the president and vice president resign.
It’s actually a moot point legally.
This demented old moron’s approval ratings will soon be down in the 30s’ like they were in 2019. the Dow is already weighing in on his spectacularly stupid tariifs. THUMBS WAY DOWN.
A recession is coming our way- count on it. I guess his only fallback at this point is kicking out all the pet eating Haitians and all the other immigrants who are poisoning our blood . And renaming military bases to honor racist traitors. LAFFriot. Hey his racist core base laps that garbage up.
This is what the redhat goobers think is smart.
Trump says groceries word “old fashioned”
The President seemed more intrigued by the very concept of disparate food products sold in a retail store, than taking any sort of concerted action to lower how much they cost. “It’s like an old-fashioned word, but it’s a beautiful word, a very descriptive word. The groceries are coming down.” “I inherited a groceries situation,” he said a day earlier at the White House.
Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/us-news-trump-groceries-such-an-old-fashioned-term-but-beautiful-trump-was-mesmerized-by-this-word-in-liberation-day-speech/articleshow/119940178.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Oy vey.
The DOW is not the economy. It is not the electorate.
Why is the likes of Adam Schiff opposed to Trump’s tariffs? Do you think he’s afraid they will tank the economy? Of course not! If he thought that, he’d let it happen, as that would be advantageous to the Dems! He’s afraid the tariffs will work, and bring jobs back to the US.
If you understood those who pass for “leaders” in your own party, knowing that they’re only interested in power would lead you to this conclusion.
this country can not afford another lefty run agenda as done by the globalist uni parties around the world
Except for one little problem: the method of election (despite how our ballots are formatted) actually has them both running for President. The electors choose them as President and Vice-President. It’s weird, but I couldn’t find a change to that concept. Which means Trump would have to be eligible to be elected, not just to serve.
I think the only way to make him President a third time is to make him Speaker of the House, then bump off the President and VP simultaneously.
The VP is merely on the ticket. The parties nominate separated individuals for the two positions. Only one of them is the presidential nominee.
The method of election in the constitution doesn’t have anyone “running” for anything. The states choose the electors, by whatever method each state prefers, and the electors then vote for a president and a vice president.
The ballot in a presidential election doesn’t actually let you vote for president or vice president. What it lets you vote for is “twenty-three electors pledged to support John Smith for president and Jane Brown for vice president”, or however many electors your state is entitled to, and whoever the candidates are.
What I think you’re referring to is the method of election before the 12th amendment, that was used in 1788, 1792, and 1796, and then failed so spectacularly in 1800.
That would only make him Acting President.
The TDSers sure are triggered by this one. And the zero-sum games fanatics, too.
There is one factor which is likely to prevent Trump from doing anything to remain in office – his age. He’s a little younger than I, and will be 82 when the next Presidential Election is held. The years weigh heavily as you get past 80 (and aren’t too light at 78 or 79).
The main factor is that the GOP base would never vote for a 3rd term for any president, however successful. Democrats will because they don’t care about our traditions.
I don’t think that’s true. There was never really a tradition of only serving two terms, it’s just that every candidate until FDR who tried for a third term failed. Not because they were breaking tradition but because the voters didn’t want them any more. Several two-term presidents tried for a third term, none succeeded until FDR.
The Constitution clearly says if you are not eligible to be President (and he wouldn’t be) then you are not eligible to be VP.
This is clear as a bell.
As I replied to Milhouse (above) pre-22nd Amendment references in the Constitution to “eligibility” should be interpreted as they were intended at the time of their adoption/ratification. They can’t possibly reference eligibility requirements that didn’t yet exist and couldn’t have been contemplated by their authors.
The 22nd amendment is a part of the Constitution. It is no less a part of the Constitution than anything else.
So we can ignore the 22nd and elect a POTUS according to Article II
You do not have to be a Representative to be elected Speaker of the House. SotH is second in line to succeed. Have a straw President and VP, they both resign and a Speaker Trump gets to be president.
No, he only gets to be acting president.
While I am not a “Trump is a master chess player playing 4D Chess while others are playing checkers” advocate – what I do see is that Trump is adept at getting the usual idiots, even some on these pages, all geared up on some nonsensical comment as he works on the side to do things he wants to do while the idiots are wrapped around the axle on “Ack, Trump is trying to be president a third time and we can’t have that, it’s unconstitutional, Orange Man BAD, the world is coming to an end, Constitutional Crisis, Existential threat, Dictator, Anarchy, Burn the Teslas, sniffle sniffle sniffle.”
Meanwhile, more illegals are being deported, more lazy bureaucrats are being terminated, and Executive Orders demanding that countries pay the same tariffs that we have to pay.
So please continue the mental masturbation and making fools of yourselves.
In the end, Trump still stacks the wins.
Trump will be in his 80’s during this term, and no one is willing to elect Trump again, especially in some nonsensical machinations, or cost of political capital.
I voted for Trump as big FUCK YOU to democrats and liberals, and to metaphorically shove my fingers (a la Joe Biden) up the stank hole of Cumsalot Prostitute Heels Up Harris.
Whoever the nominee in 2028 is will be getting graded on the Trump economy.
Which means if Trump drops the trade war we will win in 2028 if he doesn’t the economy will be bad and we will lose.
The Democrats all suck roughly equally.
Trump was elected to solve inflation and that is what the 2028 nominee will be graded on.
If he drops the “trade war”, the GOP loses all credibility. He needs to win it and get tariffs dropped around the world and give US companies access to those markets we’ve been limited or barred from.
Anybody check the Dow lately? The GDP?
Yes, the Dow is down less than 10% from its highes…not even correction territory. What’s your point?
Did you check your underwear? Smells like shit.
If we had instead elected the candidate who wanted to tax our unrealized gains, today’s Dow would be what the candy industry calls “fun sized.”
Anyone serving as a strawman would be the very definition of simp.
Or just humble. Think of how deep a bench you could pick from if you included candidates who knew they don’t have what it takes to do the job, but know who does.
Cue Truman, who famously said he owed his success to hiring people smarter than he was,
He can certainly run a campaign for the Presidency. I don’t know if he can get on the ballot, but assuming he can not there is nothing that prevents voters from writing in his name. Now assume against all odds he wins the most EC votes as a write in candidate.
SCOTUS will then rule the person who won the most EC votes can’t be president.
I’m sure the meek and timid Trump would quietly slink away. Or maybe not.
See my comment below. Under your scenario, Trump could not be “elected” a third time by the Electoral College. Nor could anyone else if he has the majority of electors. In that case, the decision is made by the House who then “chuse” the President. Trump would not be elected but chosen to serve as President. Each state’s delegation has one vote so it seems Trump would be the obvious choice. The Supreme Court would not touch this with a ten foot pole.
First of all, the whole concept of “write-in candidate” doesn’t work in a presidential election, because you’re not voting for a president but for electors who will then vote for a president. So you’d have to write in the names of all the people whom you want to be your state’s electors.
Second, any elector’s vote cast for an ineligible candidate would just not count. Therefore, contra Giustiniano, the other candidate would have not just a majority of valid votes but all of the valid votes, and would therefore be elected “unanimously”.
We’re on Day 74 of Trump’s second term. Some 457 days prior to the Semiquincentennial, which itself is some 122 days from the midterm Election Day. This is such an obvious distraction from what’s actually going on, from what’s important, the biggest nothingburger of an issue that has come forth yet, since 5 November 2024. Courtesy of your leftist lapdog propaganDem mouthpiece media, who must be so terrified of all the winning going on, that this is what they’re trying to peddle.
I guess I really can’t blame them; they’re just leftists, doing leftist sh*t. And it obviously works; hell, there are actually still people talking — with straight faces — about Nazi salutes and J6 deaths (other than the 1 actual CPD shooting death of unarmed veteran Ashley Babbitt).
Congratulations on taking the bait.
Please never forget the CPD beating death of Rosanne Boyland.
No. he Can’t.
Nor should he – putting aside how old he’ll be after another 4 years – shenanigans like running a dummy top candidate so someone else in the line of succession can take over on Day 1 is a bad precident.
No – pun intended.
Dershowitz has opined on this as well – argued with him, not me on this.
If you need white changed to black, or black changed to white, call a painter or a lawyer.
–OLD DANISH PROVERB
Ok, so what pea witted patriot is going to go through the rigors of an election campaign to get elected then resing in an act of generosity or patriotism or whatever, to see someone else get the job?
No one capable of completing a campaign.
Oddly enough, that precise scenario has been floated as a means of evading Marine Le Pen’s lawfare prohibition on running to lead France. Don’t discount it.
Trump is trolling. Nobody elected to President is simply going to resign to let Trump take over. And if that happened, Trump would need both the House and the Senate to appoint a new VP.
Being elected twice makes Trump constitutionally ineligible (to be POTUS)….does it not?
Does it really matter. He just trolling.
typical . THE MORON.says something extrastoopid. Gets called on it. The redhats circle the wagons. ” Oh he was just kidding”.
What will it EVER take for you redhats to see what is SOOOOOO obvious. He’s a liar. He’s a clueless moron on almost every subject.He’s the orange Harvey Weinstein.
He was very obviously trolling. Because morons like you take him seriously.
But he raised an interesting point of constitutional law that is worth discussing for its own sake, not because anyone really thinks he should run again.
Hey dickhead. I’m an Independent. I don’t belong to your cult, or the other one.
What I do belong to is the group that spent decades in the military defending the right for fucktards like you to shit on the Constitution when it doesn’t suit your terrorist bent.
Trump was elected President. Like it or not. But when you seek to prevent him from doing his job, then you are an enemy to the nation.
And yet, you support the guy who stuck his finger in the vagina if a subordinate. He has soiled the meaning of a free country. Yet I still accepted the fact that he was still President.
Here is the argument: the democrats have argued that Trump was not elected in 2016. If that is true, i.e., as Hillary has claimed he was “illegitimate,” then the democrats will be estopped from asserting that Trump was elected in 2016. With only one “election,” i.e., the election of 2024 that counts, he will be eligible for a second election in 2028, or, at the very least, the democrats will be barred from raising any objection in court under longstanding equitable principles.
Here is another argument: Trump is not prohibited from “running;” he is barred from being “elected”. If he runs and blocks all other candidates from obtaining a majority of electors, the electors could not be counted to “elect” him as President. The matter would then be referred to the House that is directed to “chuse” the President. If the House votes to “chuse” Trump, he would then have a third term without having been “elected” as contemplated in the 22nd Amendment.
No, that doesn’t work. If 300 electors voted for the ineligible Trump and 238 voted for AOC, then AOC would win 238-0. A clear majority. The 300 votes for an ineligible candidate could not be counted, and therefore could not form part of the majority.
Would Trump even want the job?
This is a variation on the Earl Long gambit from the 1950s. The Louisiana Constitution read that a person could not succeed himself in the office of governor more than once [at a time], thus preventing anyone from being a dynasty. Earl asked the not-so-rhetorical question, “what would happen if, say, 6 months before the end of my second term, I stepped down from being governor?”
As A. J. Liebling out it, “even Huey [Earl’s infamously brilliant, if villainous older brother] hadn’t thought of that one.”
Many sued and it rapidly went to the State Supreme Court, which handed down the decision that yes, he could do just that under the current rules. The legislature was free to amend the wording of the rule, but it wouldn’t apply until after the election.
All of this—and a lot more!—is colorfully detailed in Liebling’s excellent little book, The Earl Of Louisiana.
A Hollywood version of the book, Blaze, starred Paul Newman as Earl and Lolita Davidovich as Blaze Starr, Earl’s mistress. And stripper. Earl was nothing if not colorful.
Only inaccuracy in the movie was that Earl might have been a lot, but handsome? That would be a stretch. A Long stretch. [yes]
But the Dems did successfully run a strawman candidate in 2020… although through a much more clandestine arraignment as Biden never “resigned”. Both he and his number 2 were essentially puppets with a shadow executive branch calling the shots behind the scenes via auto-pen. I think you can easily surmise that Obama did in fact get his third term….
Republicans wrote the 22nd Amendment.
Because they are morons, they couldn’t say “served as” or similar language that would completely and categorically deny anyone the chance to serve more than two terms.
They’re the intellectual descendants of the fine folks who gave us birthright citizenship.
They are always disgusting disappointments who actually never disappoint.
If you want something screwed up give it to a Republican.
Works every time.
Read the Congressional Record. It is even more ridiculous than you would think. The debate went on for hours focused on whether a VP who assumed the Presidency would be limited to 5 years or could have as many as 11 3/4 years. The House rejected a version that provided one would be INELIGIBLE to be CHOSEN as President after two terms. The use of the election language was thought to be simpler and less subject to interpretation. Well I submit that dropping those words in favor of ELECTED can lead to anomalies. If, for example, no candidate but the one seeking a third term has a majority of electoral votes, the House can CHOOSE that candidate. There would be no judicial remedy as this would be a political question and the House decision would be paramount. So much for making things simpler, I guess.
Votes that are not counted are not counted. They’re not part of the majority. If only 238 valid votes are cast, then a majority is 120.
As others have mentioned, if Trump was Speaker of the House (legal) would he be 3rd in line for the Presidency? Or would the Court rule that the later amendments changed the eligibility standards without using the word.
It’s ‘way past time to drop this stupid idea, and move on.
A speaker can’t become president, but only acting president. Trump could do that, but he wouldn’t want to.
Better plan. If the GOP wins the House in the mid-terms, resign the Presidency in December 2026, before completing half a term. Then while waiting for re-elect ion in 2028, he could run for House Speaker.