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

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 172
  • Views: 3K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
I don't know of any law professors who would take that extreme view, that Trump couldn't serve as president via natural succession from a position other than vice-president.

And that would be my rebuttal to the calheel "elected has to have some significance." The limitation closes the VP loophole because of the 12th. It isn't true for the speaker of the house. There's just no way to interpret the provision rationally to prevent the Speaker loophole. Note that the line of succession is itself of questionable constitutional validity and there are influential people who think that no legislator or the speaker can succeed to the presidency.

It's not true that the drafters never considered a scenario like this. They didn't spend much time on it, but it was mentioned at least a few times during the debate. Enough to show that it was a foreseeable consequence. I also think the "intent" is not as clear as you think. When you look at the history, it's messier than that. Truman's status plays an important role.
Click to expand...
I'm going to stop beating my head against a wall here, but I will once again state that I seriously doubt than an amendment created for the express purpose of limiting a future president (not Truman) from seeking more than two terms nonetheless would have violated that purpose by allowing a future president to do just that - serve more than two terms in office. Again, it defies common sense despite the arguments I have seen here spinning scenarios that suggest otherwise. And with that I'll let everyone else continue with this debate and looking into all the possibilities of how Trump might indeed remain in office for yet another term.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I'm going to stop beating my head against a wall here, but I will once again state that I seriously doubt than an amendment created for the express purpose of limiting a future president (not Truman) from seeking more than two terms nonetheless would have violated that purpose by allowing a future president to do just that - serve more than two terms in office. Again, it defies common sense despite the arguments I have seen here spinning scenarios that suggest otherwise. And with that I'll let everyone else continue with this debate and looking into all the possibilities of how Trump might indeed remain in office for yet another term.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the same arguments could get us an Obama third term, which is far more likely than a third Trump term given Trump's age. And of course, this is one of the reasons that the Republicans may not want to push this thought experiment too far.
 
superrific said:
Senate confirmation. I think under that scenario, the Trump figure would probably be deemed an officer of the United States, but it's hard to know.

As for your other hypos: Trump cannot get elected VP. He can be appointed speaker, and from that position he could succeed to the presidency if the speaker can succeed. This is a simple resolution that avoids basically any and all slippery slope hypos (I think).
Click to expand...
And, again, as I understand it your position as to why Trump cannot be elected VP stems from the 12th, not the 22nd? I agree that your interpretation would be cleaner, but still do not understand the basis for that position in the 12th. Is there some academic literature that discusses that position?
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I'm going to stop beating my head against a wall here, but I will once again state that I seriously doubt than an amendment created for the express purpose of limiting a future president (not Truman) from seeking more than two terms nonetheless would have violated that purpose by allowing a future president to do just that - serve more than two terms in office. Again, it defies common sense despite the arguments I have seen here spinning scenarios that suggest otherwise. And with that I'll let everyone else continue with this debate and looking into all the possibilities of how Trump might indeed remain in office for yet another term.
Click to expand...
I don't think I've been "spinning scenarios." I think I'm just offering what I think is the best interpretation of the 22nd and the 12th I can think of.

"Common sense" is a notoriously bad way of reaching legal conclusions. I grant you that it seems bizarre on the surface that any loophole exists, but this is the way the courts will address it. I doubt there are many jurists in the US who would hold that Trump could not serve as President from a position in the line of succession other than VP.

And it might be a good time to point out that legal interpretation doesn't exist in a vacuum. The methodology I suggest might seem suboptimal in this case, but we also have to keep in mind how methodologies would apply in other cases.

People who teach and study constitutional law don't spend their time twiddling their thumbs. When you can see the whole picture, complexities can arise where they might not be seen at first -- and that's especially true if you haven't studied the law of the constitution in detail.
 
rodoheel said:
And, again, as I understand it your position as to why Trump cannot be elected VP stems from the 12th, not the 22nd? I agree that your interpretation would be cleaner, but still do not understand the basis for that position in the 12th. Is there some academic literature that discusses that position?
Click to expand...

According to this article, my position is more or less the same as Volokh, Amar and Posner. I'm pretty comfortable with that company.

There's also an interesting argument presented about "transitions." The second sentence of section 1 refers to people "acting" and "holding" and no savings clause would be needed if only elections were contemplated by the prohibition.
 
rodoheel said:
Even the most liberal interpretation of the constitution doesn't allow for us to literally right new text that doesn't appear into the amendment.
Click to expand...
Interesting typo there, considering the gist of this discussion...
 

Trump Attorney Studied Options for Third Presidential Term​

President’s recent comments rattle some Republicans​


GIFT LINK 🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-...43?st=UNaokm&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“Donald Trump’s attorney Boris Epshteyn made a bold assertion during a meeting in late 2023: Trump wouldn’t necessarily be limited to two terms in office.

Speaking to an associate in October 2023 in downtown Washington, Epshteyn pushed back on the notion that Trump would be a lame duck if he won the election in 2024. Epshteyn said he had studied the law—and he believed Trump could find a way to run again in 2028, according to the person Epshteyn met with.

…
Epshteyn, who is now the president’s outside counsel, didn’t provide a comment for this article. Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, said that “it’s far too early to think about” a third term.

Trump said this weekend that he was “not joking” about staying in office after his current term ends in January 2029, jump-starting a long-simmering Washington debate over just how serious he is about seeking a third term. The president, in an interview with NBC News, pointed to unnamed “methods” for clinching another four years in office. Trump would be 82 at the end of his second term. …”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top