Trump won’t rule out seeking a third term (1 Viewer)

[zztop]

Who could have predicted this [unsurprising] revelation?

Trump won’t rule out seeking a third term in the White House, tells NBC News ‘there are methods’ for doing so

President Donald Trump said in a Sunday-morning phone call that he was “not joking” about a third term, adding that “it is far too early to think about it.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[faceman]

It'll be a tense transition of power, because I think the leadership Trump has put in place are willing to order violations of the constitution. The tension will come from the military and secret service, because many of them may follow the constitution and refuse orders. It is our only hope.

I can see a military coup d'etat happening. I highly doubt it goes this far. The 22nd is pretty solid in it's language.


Trump will be 82 years old in 2028 if he makes it that far. How much influence would he really have? There is no honor
among thieves. We should never forget that

 

[brandon]

Okay, I’ll hear you out - what is it that you’re advocating for? Lay it out for us.

Real answer when I’ve got some time tomorrow.

 

[RobF]

I think Trump running as VP is unconstitutional based on the end of the 12th amendment, since he wouldn't be eligible based on the 22nd amendment.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The argument is that doesn't apply to him running for VP, as the 22nd amendment doesn't say he's ineligible to hold the office of President, it only says he can't be elected to the office.

So given that it's possible to act as President without being elected to the position, the 22nd doesn't explicitly say he's ineligible, so the 12th wouldn't bar him running as VP.

 

[faceman]

The argument is that doesn't apply to him running for VP, as the 22nd amendment doesn't say he's ineligible to hold the office of President, it only says he can't be elected to the office.

So given that it's possible to act as President without being elected to the position, the 22nd doesn't explicitly say he's ineligible, so the 12th wouldn't bar him running as VP.

Could Trump run as vice president in 2028, then become president a third time?

For Jeremy Paul, a Northeastern legal scholar, the question is moot because it will ultimately have to answer to the 22nd Amendment in court.

news.northeastern.edu

He's out of the picture in 2028. We'll be fine then


He continues: “The framers did the best they could to write the Constitution in such a way as to reflect their intent. On this specific issue, it would be lawless for the courts to rule any other way. The meaning of the 22nd Amendment could not be clearer.”


A clear pathway for Trump to retain power would be to convince Congress to amend the Constitution. But a constitutional amendment requires a supermajority of support (or two-thirds) in both congressional chambers, and then ratification by three-fourths of U.S. states — a steep task for any political coalition at any point in time

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-donald-trump-serve-third-term-us-president-2025-03-31/

Wayne Unger, a law professor at Quinnipiac University, said the Constitution was clear that presidents are limited to two terms of four years each. He said that while that had not been tested in court, any challenge by Trump would likely be unsuccessful.
"I would predict the Supreme Court to say nope, it's clear, two terms of four years each, Donald Trump, you cannot run for a third," said Unger, who teaches constitutional law.

 

[RobF]

Could Trump run as vice president in 2028, then become president a third time?

For Jeremy Paul, a Northeastern legal scholar, the question is moot because it will ultimately have to answer to the 22nd Amendment in court.

news.northeastern.edu

He's out of the picture in 2028. We'll be fine then


He continues: “The framers did the best they could to write the Constitution in such a way as to reflect their intent. On this specific issue, it would be lawless for the courts to rule any other way. The meaning of the 22nd Amendment could not be clearer.”


A clear pathway for Trump to retain power would be to convince Congress to amend the Constitution. But a constitutional amendment requires a supermajority of support (or two-thirds) in both congressional chambers, and then ratification by three-fourths of U.S. states — a steep task for any political coalition at any point in time

I may well be missing something, but from what I can see, people are being a bit too glib about this prospect.

Take the statement quoted: "The meaning of the 22nd Amendment could not be clearer."

I mean, it could? Obviously? What does it say:

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.​

If the intent is to say that they're also ineligible to hold the office by any other means (and hence also can't be elected as Vice-President via the 12th) it could, to be clearer, actually say that.

But it doesn't.

I get the distinct impression people are conflating the meaning of the 22nd amendment as defined by what it actually says with the intent of the 22nd amendment as inferred from the context in which it was passed.

But from the phrasing, it's not clear on this point, it's ambiguous. Leaving aside the specific shenanigans under discussion, is the intent to say, for example, that an experienced two-term President can't serve as VP to a younger, first-time President?

So while there are opinions that, essentially, consider "eligibility to be elected to the office" as in essence the same as "eligibility to hold the office" and hence take the 12th amendment as applicable, there are also most definitely considered opinions that do not take that stance.

For example - https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/1012/ (you can click Download for the full pdf) - which concludes that "In fact, the relevant constitutional provisions, their histories, and their purposes all point to the same conclusion: A twice-before-elected President may become Vice-President either through appointment or through election and — like any other Vice-President — may thereafter succeed from that office to the Presidency for the full remainder of the pending term."

Edit to add: I wouldn't personally put money on this becoming relevant, partly because it may become moot if Trump's age/health don't enable him to do it, but mainly because I'm not sure his ego would allow it. But I don't think it's the straight-out "clearly can't happen" some view it as.

 

[faceman]

The argument is that doesn't apply to him running for VP, as the 22nd amendment doesn't say he's ineligible to hold the office of President, it only says he can't be elected to the office.

So given that it's possible to act as President without being elected to the position, the 22nd doesn't explicitly say he's ineligible, so the 12th wouldn't bar him running as VP.

If he's Vances running mate he would be elected. Once again no dice. He's gone in 2028

 

[RobF]

If he's Vances running mate he would be elected. Once again no dice. He's gone in 2028

Given the above, it's not clear what your argument is here.

Are you arguing that the 22nd amendment doesn't allow election to the office of Vice President, even though it doesn't say anything at all about election to the office of Vice President?

Are you arguing that the 12th amendment doesn't allow election to the office of Vice President on the basis that the 22nd amendment doesn't allow election to the office of President, even though the 12th amendment refers to constitutional eligibility to the office and the 22nd amendment doesn't say that a person isn't eligible to be President, only that they can't be elected to the office?

Or are you making the more nuanced argument that running to be elected as Vice President with the explicit intention of assuming the role of President is de facto running to be elected as President and hence would be found to be unconstitutional on that basis?

 

[faceman]

Given the above, it's not clear what your argument is here.

Are you arguing that the 22nd amendment doesn't allow election to the office of Vice President, even though it doesn't say anything at all about election to the office of Vice President?

Are you arguing that the 12th amendment doesn't allow election to the office of Vice President on the basis that the 22nd amendment doesn't allow election to the office of President, even though the 12th amendment refers to constitutional eligibility to the office and the 22nd amendment doesn't say that a person isn't eligible to be President, only that they can't be elected to the office?

Or are you making the more nuanced argument that running to be elected as Vice President with the explicit intention of assuming the role of President is de facto running to be elected as President and hence would be found to be unconstitutional on that basis?

Honestly I believe you and Brandon are overreacting. I'll take the opinion of a constitutional law scholar over both. No disrespect
intended

 

[RobF]

Honestly I believe you and Brandon are overreacting. I'll take the opinion of a constitutional law scholar over both. No disrespect
intended

Constitutional law scholars don't agree? I mean, the paper I linked to was written by Dan T. Coenen in 2015, who's the Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Georgia, not some random unqualified bozo.

So there isn't a, "I'll go with the constitutional law scholars," out on this.

 

[faceman]

Constitutional law scholars don't agree? I mean, the paper I linked to was written by Dan T. Coenen in 2015, who's the Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Georgia, not some random unqualified bozo.

So there isn't a, "I'll go with the constitutional law scholars," out on this.

we'll know soon

call me naive,but I believe our constitution > Trump. It was framed to survive bad presidents. We survived Andrew Jackson
and Richard Nixon. We'll survive Trump

 

[bird]

Since I subscribe to the theory of paranoia, it would not surprise me if the corrupt SCOTUS found some way around the verbiage prohibiting serving more than two terms. This would really be a problem if he ran again and won.

Just because I am paranoid that doesn’t mean they are not out to get me.

 

[faceman]

Since I subscribe to the theory of paranoia, it would not surprise me if the corrupt SCOTUS found some way around the verbiage prohibiting serving more than two terms. This would really be a problem if he ran again and won.

Just because I am paranoid that doesn’t mean they are not out to get me.

6-3 against Trump currently. I wouldn't be shocked if Cavenaugh made it 7-2. We are going to be fine

 

[Optimus Prime]

Jokes have a specific relation to Trumpian politics: they are the tip of the spear for introducing illegal or once-unacceptable ideas to the public, under a thick gloss of irony or plausible deniability, to advance a far-right agenda.

In 2016, Donald Trump’s support from the young, online “alt-right” was underestimated in part because so much of the profession of love for Trump, and for his racist and authoritarian ambitions, came in the form of supposed jokes.

Trump himself, meanwhile, uses humor to charm and titillate, making jokes to demean adversaries, get audiences on his side, and hint, with winking coyness, about his next move. This has been his strategy for years.

So when analysts have asked, over the years he has been floating the possibility, whether Trump is joking or serious when he has said that he will seek a third term in office, in defiance of the constitution, the answer was never an either-or.

The answer was “yes”: he was both joking, of course, and he was also entirely serious.

For those who still had not caught on to this game, Trump made himself helpfully explicit this week, in an interview with NBC News. “I’m not joking,” he said, when asked to clarify his ambitions to continue in office in violation of the 22nd amendment.

“There are methods which you could do it [sic].” He acknowledged that he could possibly run as a vice-presidential candidate – in potential violation of the 12th amendment – and assume office once the presidential candidate on his ticket stepped aside, as one possible way to hold onto power.

“But there are others, too,” he said. He refused to elaborate on what those other methods might be.

Constitutional lawyers – a group of people who seemingly cannot help but indulge in clever games of wordplay even when the republic is at stake – seemed to take up Trump’s anti-constitutional authoritarian ambitions as something like a fun intellectual challenge…….

First Trump joked he wanted a third term. Then he got serious | Moira Donegan

The US president made himself explicit this week by saying: ‘I’m not joking’ when asked about his ambitions to stay in office

www.theguardian.com

 

[faceman]

Jokes have a specific relation to Trumpian politics: they are the tip of the spear for introducing illegal or once-unacceptable ideas to the public, under a thick gloss of irony or plausible deniability, to advance a far-right agenda.

In 2016, Donald Trump’s support from the young, online “alt-right” was underestimated in part because so much of the profession of love for Trump, and for his racist and authoritarian ambitions, came in the form of supposed jokes.

Trump himself, meanwhile, uses humor to charm and titillate, making jokes to demean adversaries, get audiences on his side, and hint, with winking coyness, about his next move. This has been his strategy for years.

So when analysts have asked, over the years he has been floating the possibility, whether Trump is joking or serious when he has said that he will seek a third term in office, in defiance of the constitution, the answer was never an either-or.

The answer was “yes”: he was both joking, of course, and he was also entirely serious.

For those who still had not caught on to this game, Trump made himself helpfully explicit this week, in an interview with NBC News. “I’m not joking,” he said, when asked to clarify his ambitions to continue in office in violation of the 22nd amendment.

“There are methods which you could do it [sic].” He acknowledged that he could possibly run as a vice-presidential candidate – in potential violation of the 12th amendment – and assume office once the presidential candidate on his ticket stepped aside, as one possible way to hold onto power.

“But there are others, too,” he said. He refused to elaborate on what those other methods might be.

Constitutional lawyers – a group of people who seemingly cannot help but indulge in clever games of wordplay even when the republic is at stake – seemed to take up Trump’s anti-constitutional authoritarian ambitions as something like a fun intellectual challenge…….

First Trump joked he wanted a third term. Then he got serious | Moira Donegan

The US president made himself explicit this week by saying: ‘I’m not joking’ when asked about his ambitions to stay in office

www.theguardian.com

He is very serious. Don't kid yourself. He's serious about a 3rd term and taking Greenland by force.