Donald Trump Hints At Constitution-Breaking 3rd Term As President

[superrific]

Wouldn’t state laws re: getting his name on ballot come into play? I assume most require constitutional eligibility.

1. I doubt they would come into play for a general election. I think they tend to presume that the parties will only nominate constitutionally eligible candidates. Thus, most of the eligibility issues come in play during the primaries (remember -- the Colorado ruling on insurrection that was overturned came in the context of the primary ballot).

2. The Supreme Court only specified in Trump v. Anderson the conditions by which a candidate can be disqualified under section 3 of the 14th, but the overall tenor of the opinion is that states should not try to make national decisions about candidate eligibility.

It's tricky, because this cuts both ways. Arizona tried to make the provision of a birth certificate a requirement for being on the ballot in Arizona, and the courts struck that down -- and good, because Arizona was obviously fishing for some bullshit reason to exclude Obama. In essence, the Court said that Arizona can't impose new requirements on presidential eligibility. Here, we would not be adding but enforcing such requirements. Still, I'd guess this court would say something like:

The constitution specifies certain characteristics required for a person to be president. None of them are "ability to prove eligibility in a court of law." So while a candidate has to be a natural born citizen, a state cannot make him/her prove it or else that would be adding a requirement.

Yes, bullshit, but less bullshit than Trump v. US

 

[rodoheel]

It may not specifically say that, but I think it is clear that the intention of the Amendment was to prevent another FDR-type situation of a POTUS serving more than two terms as president, period. Otherwise the amendment would never have been added to the constitution. You're right in that given the specific wording there may be some sneaky ways to try and get around it, but the clear intent of the amendment was to prevent someone from serving more than two terms, whether they became VP after two terms as POTUS and took over or whatever the situation or scheme they came up with to stay in office. So for Trump to become POTUS using some scheme like becoming VP or House Speaker and having/forcing the people above him to quit would clearly be in violation of the intention of the 22nd Amendment.

Having said that, nothing that this administration does would surprise me, so it would not be a shock for them to come up with something like this, or just ignore the 22nd Amendment and run again anyway. He clearly thinks he can do whatever he wants right now except for those pesky judges that he's starting to ignore on at least some issues, so why let the 22nd block him from another, god-ordained term?

I don't entirely agree. It would have been very easy to draft the amendment to prevent someone serving more than 2 terms as President, as opposed to being elected President more than twice, if that's what it meant. I don't think there's any "sneaky" reading required to get to that conclusion. It's the plain text of the amendment. The better question is whether people would vote for a "Trump as VP and clearly true President" ticket.

 

[rodoheel]

Second, his approval rating will be in the 20s. The GOP will be trying to run away from him, not embrace him.

The idea that the GOP will be running away from Trump in 2028 is as naive as the thought many expressed after J6 that the GOP would be running away from him in 2024. Trump has an absolute stranglehold on a plurality, if not a majority, of the party's voters. They will simply never admit he did anything wrong (or that they were wrong about him). Trump will be the primary power broker in the party as long as he is alive - able to singlehandedly tank any Republican candidate on his own - and after he dies he will be a revered hero on the far right for years to come - like Reagan but for the MAGA crowd instead of the Chamber of Commerce crowd.

People have been predicting the Republicans distancing themselves from Trump for like 8 years now. I may have been one of those people in the past, but I won't be now. He has built the party utterly in his image as a cult of personality around himself. The only fight when he's gone will be to be the person who inherits and carries on his supposed legacy, either with his blessing (if alive) or by convincing voters that they're the rightful heir (if he's dead).

It would take a disaster of epic proportions that could only logically be blamed on Trump for Republicans to be running away from him at the national level in 2028. It's candidly hard to visualize what that might be. Even tanking the economy, which he's doing his dangedest to do, won't be enough, IMO.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I don't entirely agree. It would have been very easy to draft the amendment to prevent someone serving more than 2 terms as President, as opposed to being elected President more than twice, if that's what it meant. I don't think there's any "sneaky" reading required to get to that conclusion. It's the plain text of the amendment. The better question is whether people would vote for a "Trump as VP and clearly true President" ticket.

The wording is very likely because they didn't believe that anyone would try the schemes (and that's exactly what they would be) necessary to backdoor someone into a third term as president. They would not have gone to the trouble of adding the amendment if the intention wasn't clear that no one should serve more than two terms. Otherwise why add it to the constitution at all if you're going to allow someone to backdoor their way around a two-term limit?

 

[superrific]

The idea that the GOP will be running away from Trump in 2028 is as naive as the thought many expressed after J6 that the GOP would be running away from him in 2024.

The difference, though, is that after J6 the idea was that voters would care about democracy. Apparently they don't.

My intuition is based on the idea that voters care about the economy. And the directness with which he lied will cost him. Yes, these are people who only care about the lies when it's their face being eaten, but the guy promised to reduce prices and if stagflation is the result -- with Trump denying that there is stagflation, or that there are any losers from his tariff plans, etc. -- I don't think that will be easily forgotten.

If voters don't care about the economy -- that is, if they don't care when their prices rise and incomes fall -- then sure, Trump might still be popular. Who knows. I just don't think that a president can induce a massive recession and then benefit from it.

 

[superrific]

I don't entirely agree. It would have been very easy to draft the amendment to prevent someone serving more than 2 terms as President, as opposed to being elected President more than twice, if that's what it meant. I don't think there's any "sneaky" reading required to get to that conclusion. It's the plain text of the amendment. The better question is whether people would vote for a "Trump as VP and clearly true President" ticket.

Again, the issue isn't so much the 22nd as the 12th-22nd interplay.

One of the reasons they didn't go with "serving" is widespread disagreement as to how to handle vice-presidents who serve partial terms. Do we say that VPs don't count as having served a term unless the vacancy arises halfway into a term? 1/4? Where's the appropriate line to be drawn? This was a major issue for Truman, who had served most of Roosevelt's last term. So they went with "elected" as a compromise of sorts -- i.e. a compromise necessary to get Dem support. Basically that was a decision that the VP shouldn't have electoral prospects diminished by virtue of taking over the presidency.

 

[rodoheel]

The difference, though, is that after J6 the idea was that voters would care about democracy. Apparently they don't.

My intuition is based on the idea that voters care about the economy. And the directness with which he lied will cost him. Yes, these are people who only care about the lies when it's their face being eaten, but the guy promised to reduce prices and if stagflation is the result -- with Trump denying that there is stagflation, or that there are any losers from his tariff plans, etc. -- I don't think that will be easily forgotten.

If voters don't care about the economy -- that is, if they don't care when their prices rise and incomes fall -- then sure, Trump might still be popular. Who knows. I just don't think that a president can induce a massive recession and then benefit from it.

It isn't really necessary that Trump "benefit" from the recession - he will simply blame it on Dems/other people and something like 20% of the total electorate will believe and follow literally anything he says.

We have been shown, over and over again, that for tens of millions of Americans there is no Trump lie so big that they won't believe it, no misdeed so pernicious that they'll condemn it. Is it possible that tanking the economy to oblivion will be the exception to the rule? Sure. But at this point I really doubt there is anything that will ever make the core MAGA supporters admit that Trump is anything other than the God-king.

 

[rodoheel]

Again, the issue isn't so much the 22nd as the 12th-22nd interplay.

One of the reasons they didn't go with "serving" is widespread disagreement as to how to handle vice-presidents who serve partial terms. Do we say that VPs don't count as having served a term unless the vacancy arises halfway into a term? 1/4? Where's the appropriate line to be drawn? This was a major issue for Truman, who had served most of Roosevelt's last term. So they went with "elected" as a compromise of sorts -- i.e. a compromise necessary to get Dem support. Basically that was a decision that the VP shouldn't have electoral prospects diminished by virtue of taking over the presidency.

You may be right about the nature of the compromise leading to the amendment - not a subject I know much about - but I don't think you can plausibly read the 22nd to say that once a person has been elected twice (or finished at least half a term and been elected afterwards) they either (1) can no longer be elected to another office that's in the line of presidential succession, or (2) can be elected to another office in the line of presidential succession, but can't succeed to the presidency even if they otherwise would according to the rules of succession. Whether or not that should be what the amendment says, it isn't what is says.

 

[rodoheel]

The wording is very likely because they didn't believe that anyone would try the schemes (and that's exactly what they would be) necessary to backdoor someone into a third term as president. They would not have gone to the trouble of adding the amendment if the intention wasn't clear that no one should serve more than two terms. Otherwise why add it to the constitution at all if you're going to allow someone to backdoor their way around a two-term limit?

So is it your position that under the 22nd amendment:

1. Trump can't be elected as VP (or to any other office in the line of succession); or
2. Trump can be elected to those offices but can't succeed to the presidency when he otherwise would under the succession rules?

I just can't see how you can stretch the wording of the 22nd to mean either of those things. It isn't what it says. You may be right that no one at the time considered that someone in the future might try to get elected VP after having been President twice. You may be right that Trump doing this would be against the spirit of the 22nd. But that doesn't mean we get to retroactively change what the amendment says.

 

[BlueSteel]

The third term and Greenland nonsense are solely to distract from the idiotic security breach. And, once again, it's working.

 

[Healing]

The third term and Greenland nonsense are solely to distract from the idiotic security breach. And, once again, it's working.

I would agree had the third term and Greenland shit just popped off. But Trump isn’t imaginative. He lies constantly about hows and whys, but when something is directly associated with his personal image and sense of self he exposes his goals, irrespective of the tone used.

 

[Geisterfahrer]

I really don't think we need to worry about a third term for Trump. For one thing, he'll be 82-83 -- and he's already been slipping. Second, his approval rating will be in the 20s. The GOP will be trying to run away from him, not embrace him. No way they are going to orchestrate some special plan to keep him on the ticket only to get killed in the election.

If there's not a fair election in 2028, then it doesn't really matter.

I think this is right. Plus I think the GOP is going to get its ass handed to it in 2026 midterms.

 

[superrific]

So is it your position that under the 22nd amendment:

1. Trump can't be elected as VP (or to any other office in the line of succession); or
2. Trump can be elected to those offices but can't succeed to the presidency when he otherwise would under the succession rules?

I just can't see how you can stretch the wording of the 22nd to mean either of those things. It isn't what it says. You may be right that no one at the time considered that someone in the future might try to get elected VP after having been President twice. You may be right that Trump doing this would be against the spirit of the 22nd. But that doesn't mean we get to retroactively change what the amendment says.

It is my position, under the 12th-22nd interplay, that Trump cannot be elected VP. He can succeed to the presidency from any other office on the line of succession, and he could be appointed VP and then take the presidency if the president then resigned.

The issue about the VP qualifications comes from the 12th, not the 22nd.

 

[Calheel]

It is my position, under the 12th-22nd interplay, that Trump cannot be elected VP. He can succeed to the presidency from any other office on the line of succession, and he could be appointed VP and then take the presidency if the president then resigned.

The issue about the VP qualifications comes from the 12th, not the 22nd.

How would you challenge it? After the Colorado case, I’m not sure how you’d get five justices to agree that state election boards could make the call.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

So is it your position that under the 22nd amendment:

1. Trump can't be elected as VP (or to any other office in the line of succession); or
2. Trump can be elected to those offices but can't succeed to the presidency when he otherwise would under the succession rules?

I just can't see how you can stretch the wording of the 22nd to mean either of those things. It isn't what it says. You may be right that no one at the time considered that someone in the future might try to get elected VP after having been President twice. You may be right that Trump doing this would be against the spirit of the 22nd. But that doesn't mean we get to retroactively change what the amendment says.

The 22nd Amendment was written and pretty much universally recognized as an amendment that was specifically designed to limit a president to two terms, period. The fact that the wording says "elected" does not change the intention of the amendment. You are the one who is "retroactively" trying to argue that the people who wrote the amendment and got it through the ratification process would somehow be okay if a president schemed his way into a third term anyway - despite such allowances not being written in the amendment. If that is not the case, then why was the amendment created in the first place? Why would a group ratify an amendment clearly limiting a president to two terms when they would be okay with a president finding some other way to stay in office? It literally makes no sense.

And if you want to argue about "stretching the wording" where is it written in the amendment that the scenarios you have described are allowed? If they were okay with a two-term president finding another way to stay in office, then why is that wording not in the amendment? And even better - why did they go to the trouble in the amendment of adding the wording that "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." So it is worded that a president could not be elected for more than two terms, and that someone who takes their place more than two years into their term cannot be elected more than once. For people who were apparently OK with a president finding a non-elected way to stay in office, they certainly went out of their way to make sure that even a successor would be limited in how long they can stay in office.

 

[altmin]

The difference, though, is that after J6 the idea was that voters would care about democracy. Apparently they don't.

My intuition is based on the idea that voters care about the economy. And the directness with which he lied will cost him. Yes, these are people who only care about the lies when it's their face being eaten, but the guy promised to reduce prices and if stagflation is the result -- with Trump denying that there is stagflation, or that there are any losers from his tariff plans, etc. -- I don't think that will be easily forgotten.

If voters don't care about the economy -- that is, if they don't care when their prices rise and incomes fall -- then sure, Trump might still be popular. Who knows. I just don't think that a president can induce a massive recession and then benefit from it.

Comes down to if people hate brown people or their retirement fund more.

 

[Calheel]

Comes down to if people hate brown people or their retirement fund more.

People love money WAY more than they hate other people.

 

[altmin]

People love money WAY more than they hate other people.

well they don't love short term planning about money then. He was screaming the word "tariff" for a year.

 

[superrific]

How would you challenge it? After the Colorado case, I’m not sure how you’d get five justices to agree that state election boards could make the call.

Well, I share that concern. I think we can both agree that the election board would have an easier case. Let's start from basic principles.

1. Surely election boards can enforce 35 year old natural born citizen, right? I think the Supreme Court said as much, though I didn't read that opinion very closely. That's because (at least in part) that requirement is not subject to any significant fact-finding. Either the person is 35 or not. So it doesn't fall to an election official to determine what is, or isn't, an insurrection. In addition, for those other clauses, there's no question of whether they are self-executing and we don't have that "Congress can change this" issue as in the 14th.

2. I would think, for the 22nd, that election boards would be expected to make the call as to the president. Again, it's such a trivial determination as to be ministerial. If ever there is a role for an election board in this context, it would be weeding out the candidates who are objectively not qualified.

3. So then we have the VP workaround issue. I would argue that this is more like the 35 year old requirement, in that it requires no fact-finding. Either the person has or hasn't been elected twice -- and perhaps no determination would be easier for a court to make than that one, LOL. Maybe gravity.

Sure, the law here is uncertain. But that can be resolved by a Supreme Court decision interpreting the 22nd and 12th. If the Supreme Court says, "nope, can't do it" then election boards everywhere can.

The problem in the insurrection case was the prospect of the Supreme Court having to review these determinations over and over again because the disablement is not objectively defined. You know a state like Texas would try to disqualify Biden or a Dem under the idea that they have encouraged an "invasion." And it would eventually go to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would have to decide the case on its facts, and that's messy for everyone. Of all the Trump election cases, the outcome in that one was the most sensible and I think I agreed with it at the time.

4. So I can't think of any reason why the issue would be non-justiciable. Obviously Congress wouldn't have to act to enforce it (it is very clearly self-executing) or even define it. So why wouldn't a court be competent?

 

[superrific]

People love money WAY more than they hate other people.

This is absolutely not true.

It is true of some people. Hopefully most people. But clearly not all. How else to explain Alabama or Mississippi -- states that are constantly poor, always under Republican leadership, that make very little effort to get better?

And of course there's the famous LBJ quote about convincing the lowest white man that he's better than the highest black man. Unless we think LBJ was full of shit, that seems to describe people hating people more than loving money.