Yes, you’re right.
Unfortunately I don’t doubt that Trump would try this. Would anyone even try to stop him? If they tried, would they succeed?
Look at how his machinations have (not) been stopped up to now.😒
If he tries there would be solid legal grounds to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of that election no matter what the Supreme Court says. In fact that is probably also the case after their insane ruling on the 14th.
this is closer to alitoan vibe-based preferential originalism than the pet theory i just made up that states can use their first and tenth amendment rights to withdraw electors at any time, allowing each state multiple opportunities to unilaterally and indefinitely revoke certification.
"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
This seems straightforward to me.
If one is ineligible to be president, that person is also ineligible to be vp.
nothing about running or electing or family members
If this is a thing, then somebody might as well argue that Trump was "elected" in 2016 and 2020 and this was ineligible to be elected again in 2024. Force Trump to argue in court that he was NOT elected in 2020. I would do it just to force him to take that position.
While we are at it, majorities in both Houses of Congress already voted that he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States - the criterion for disqualification in 14A S3. It's just the conviction of an impeachment charge requires a supermajority
and next, i think we should have an amendment that says the courts will offer maximum mercy to those found to be orphans after murdering their parents.
While this is an interesting exercise, and actually worth understanding, I'm really interested in just how far his dementia has progressed and what his sell by date is.
Resolved: the venerated Constitution of the United States has never been worthy of the country it governs, not only on the usual grounds (slavery, women’s rights, etc.) but on pure governmental organization grounds.
I thought to be elected as VP, you had to be able to serve as President but he would be barred by not being able to serve more than 2 more years, right? I thought it was ironclad 10 years total. I guess I'm wrong....
This is an absolutely insane interpretation of the 12th Amendment and wouldn't hold up in any court of law. (Even one with a bunch of Trump appointees.)
This is asinine sophistry. If you're ineligible for the office, you're ineligible to be elected to it. You can't be on the ballot for VP if you're ineligible to be P.
This is absolute sophistry. The fact that 6 hyper-cynical/hyper-partisan/pathologically dishonest thugs in robes have no qualms about engaging in such sophistry as they rewrite the US Constitution instead of doing the job they swore to do doesn't make it less so.
The problem is that it's the supreme court who would eventually decide the reading of that text and they are WELL known these days for asinine sophistry that benefits their agenda.
there’s difference between explaining how SCOTUS could contort themselves to go against the plain text of the constitution and conceding that those contortions are correct
I agree and I never argued with that. But in the America that we currently live in, using the correct reading as an argument against why the situation would never happen is pedantic.
This is true, but the fact that a bunch of religiofascists make mock of the law doesn't change what the law actually says. This is very black and white. It says explicitly that if you're not eligible to be POTUS, you can't be elected VP.
I agree. Alas, were it not for how old and feeble Trump already is, this would not give me confidence that he wouldn't TRY and that the current SCOTUS might not side with him.
Strangely enough some legal scholars have argued a former two term president can be elected VP, but would only ever be eligible to serve 2 years or less. I don’t buy it though.
"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States"
And no. If you advance from the VP to the top seat, and serve out only half or less than the predecessor's term, THEN u can have another two full terms. Not vice versa
Exactly you need the exact same qualifications to be in the line of succession as you do for the president. When the odd cabinet members had been born abroad they were removed from the succession.
Not in the line of succession, no. Only the WH spots. You can be foreign-born and be elected Speaker of the House, or SecState (Hai Madeleine). What would happen should both the POTUS and VP be taken out and such a person be next in line - THAT'S a bit of a COTUS grey area.
Removed isn’t the right word. Someone in the cabinet doesn’t need to be born in the United States, but the cabinet is in the line of succession, so if it came to that person they’d skip to next in the line of succession.
Scenario that has to play out for this to happen: 1. GOP nominates a presidential candidate who promises to resign and finds a running mate who agrees.
2. GOP wins
3. 1/20 they take office
4. VP immediately resigns
5. Pres nominates Trump as VP
6. Both houses of congress confirms
7. Pres resigns
If the GOP can win in 4 years (please no), doesn’t it seem more likely that Trump is farting around at mar a lago as a figurehead for the maga movement? Like he’s “consulted” on a bill and his “approval” is used as a rhetorical weapon against an opposing MAGA faction?
If there’s a box blocking the hallway and I come up with a scheme to get around it, that may or may not work, it doesn’t mean the box isn’t an obstacle. Some measure of linguistic precision should brought to bear when writing about the law of all things.
They already had the ideas. These guys are junior high misfits hopped up on sugar, caffeine & adderall, they're full of the worst & stupidest ideas we can imagine. Stuff so stupid it'll never occur to the rest of us. It's better we have someone point it out.
Trump will be gone in a year-w billions $ billions-a lifetime pardon and Vance will be installed by the billionaire tech bros and millions of Americans will be unemployed or working for slave wages. There will be an even bigger prison industrial complex and you will be monitored by AI & satellites!
I'm pretty sure a skeet with 400 likes on Bluesky isn't going to give someone who is in a position to do something about it an idea they didn't already have.
I predict he will just declare that it is in the “interest of national security” that he remain in office after his term expires. There will be lawsuits, but the constitution is no match for SCOTUS’ “official acts” ruling.
This is an extremely tortured and bad faith reading of an extraordinarily straight forward provision to the Constitution. Honestly everything about a Trump 3rd term that doesn't involve a coup is so absurd on its face that it is not even worth discussing or writing about.
He cannot serve as potus. He would be skipped in the line of ascension just as a non-US born Speaker of the House would be skipped if potus and vp stepped down.
This would almost certainly be acceptable to the courts even if begrudgingly. Strengthening the 14A s3 prohibition on insurrectionists w some Congressional clarity would’ve worked, tho. And while we’re at it, I’d bet a Constitutional amendment negating POTUS immunity could get bipartisan support.
He will die in the first year. His dementia has progressed and his high cholesterol intake is alarming 🚨He will eventually forget how to chew and swallow and choke on McDonalds.
Then we are stuck with Vance 😔
I know what dementia looks like at the end. I cared for my father. They forget how to swallow. I had to stand by him when he ate. My father didn’t die that way but it happens
My dad passed away in front of my on thanksgiving morning 2017. I believe my aunt came from heaven to get him because he called her name often. My parents are dancing the polka in heaven. He’s in really good hands now ✝️
Back when I was stupid, naive & didn’t know he would be allowed to use the presidency to make money (2015); I thought Trump would pick a VP, win, resign, & laugh his narcissistic self into the sunset knowing he and he alone hand-picked the POTUS. I underestimated his narcissism and gift for grift.
Yes, I have worried about this for quite awhile. I wish the brilliant minds who drafted the 22nd Amendment had simply included a prohibition on SERVING along with the prohibition on being ELECTED. 😒
oh FFS. Trump has progressive dementia, he'd be 82 1/2 and will, if not dead, be a decrepit incoherent mess. I predict by in 2 years he will enter late stage dementia. hell, they can tell him he is still President and he won't know any better.
12th Amendment, last sentence: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
I think that’s the whole point of the strict textualist reading. Trump wouldn’t be ineligible to the office, he would be ineligible to be elected to the office. Eligibility for the office is art. 2 sec. 1 (35 years old, citizen, natural born, resident for 14 years).
Oof. It's an argument. I'm worried that given Trump v Anderson, SCOTUS would say the 22nd Amendment is only enforceable by Congress, not state rulings on ballot eligibility.
Yeah, I mean they’re definitely going to let him run again under this scheme. I’m not sure why people are pretending otherwise and acting like these discussions are silly (I know you’re not doing this)
Yes, this is the most plausible route. If the 14th amendment is not self-executing, then why is the 22nd? I am disappointed that Stern and Lithwick's article ignores Trump v Anderson completely -- _all_ of the Supreme Court justices agreed that the states couldn't enforce the 14th.
this is my exact concern. I have no idea how it's meant to be enforced. can states refuse to accept filing papers for a presidential primary? or refuse to accept a party's designation of its nominee? if the candidate runs as a write-in, are states compelled to count write-in votes?
can members of the electoral college be prohibited from voting for them? if they receive a majority of the electoral votes, would the Court step in? does Congress have a constitutional obligation to do so? the refusal to pre-screen candidate filings anywhere has massive consequences everywhere.
I mean Colorado exercised exactly this kind of judgment with regard to barring Trump from the primary ballot per 14AS3, and the Supreme Court told them they didn’t have the right to do so. Don’t know why the logic wouldn’t be the same here.
I disagree with Anderson, but I think the Fourteenth Amendment has a greater textual basis for the finding in Anderson than the Twenty-second Amendment would have for a similar holding. The Fourteenth Amendment contemplates congressional action in some form, but the Twenty-second doesn't.
Cool, my 17-year-old nephew can run for president, since Congress has not passed a law enforcing the age requirement. Seriously, this isn't pettifoggery, this is just lawlessness.
Mike (and Brian Kalt) are both smarter than me, but to me the wording of the XII Amendment much more directly supports a reading that bars a two-term President from a term as Vice-President. The other reading seems too cute by half.
You have to be eligible to be elected vice president to even become president under that scenario, and a person who has served two terms as president is not eligible to be elected vice president. They can't even stand for that office. Your point is nonexistent.
I am not convinced, as this presupposes a difference between "eligible" and "electable". There isn't any, as both are adjectives of the verb "to elect". And if eligibile=electable, Trump is not electable as president (although might become so if somehow finds himself as VP) & therefore can't be VP.
IKR I'm also really conflicted. So long as Baalke is the GM, the draft won't matter, and a win or two to finish would be nice. OTOH they need to clean house, so maybe losing is better. I can't decide! I'll just listen to both games (I'm not local) and whatever happens, happens!
Agree. I think clean sweep, top to bottom. New blood with a coach and gm who’ll be in Jax for the next decade or more.
maybe unfair to both with all the injuries etc, but this team was not good from right out the gate. Sometimes it’s best to just move on.
Such schemes would probably have occurred to them sooner or later, though I would prefer that we not tell them that they can get away with it, as that part is far from obvious.
Loved this morning’s episode. I can’t imagine the R’s finding a candidate charismatic enough to be taken seriously, but with a tiny, baby ego that could bear the humiliation of being told that you are a “wooden boy” placeholder only there to get Trump a third term. Could be my lack of creativity.
"Death of Stalin".. the scenario I foresee is that he is one day "paralyzed by a stroke" and only Ivanka can hear/interpret his slurred whispers to divine his succession intentions, big time drama
People complaining about this post haven’t learned anything from the last election. We have to plan for the ways that we might lose, and develop counter strategies, other than saying “delete your account fool”.
If it's any consolation, trump is not going to make it to the end of this term. He has Stage 5 dementia and is losing years off his life with each incoming stage. It's all down hill from here, there is no coming back from it. It is too late to get him the help he needed.
I mean sure, a ludicrously corrupt Supreme Court consisting of legal hacks might construe the 22nd this way on clearly biased partisan terms, but there's no reason you should.
This could be a glimmer of hope against dictatorship as there is absolutely no way MAGA and even an AI driven bot army would elect Cocaine Jr president in 2028.
Chump will see this as the time for him to make all his "power" moves. I think if that tactic could succeed then there is no hope for this country. More importantly in my mind is the affect his tariffs, fascist policies, catering to the rich, and his lies will alienate his base.
I suppose it’s to be expected that this app has the capacity to be as mean as the other one to journalists. I don’t think the criticism of you is fair- it’s reasonable to think that they will come up with more harebrained schemes to keep Trump in office and that SCOTUS might agree given - all of it
This is just objectively not true. The amendment says it in plain language, and playing DnD Rules Lawyer in clear contradiction of the meaning is just carrying water. Say it clearly: there is no legal way he gets a third term. Full stop.
I find it funny that people think Bozo's gonna be around in 2028. He'll be lucky to get to the end of 2025. If his arteries don't get him, an open window on an upper floor will.
Note the most important thing Stern says: trump is a strongman and the essence of a strongman is that there can be NO limits to his power. Read Ruth Ben-Ghiat's book _Strongmen_ to see why this is truel
The first step is Trump’s team thinking this shit up. The second step is useful idiots like this giving it oxygen like it’s some viable plan and not the illegal crock of horseshit that it is. This plan is pitchforks, and anyone, especially stupid lawyers, who say differently deserve pitchforks too.
There's this fascinating thing that you see in Liberal brains where they massively overestimate the effect that "just some guy on twitter" has on the outcomes of the American political system, partly because they've cooked themselves into a state of permanent worry
It would essentially be immaterial if Don Jr, or any other acolyte for that matter, was elected as president, whether they stepped aside or not. Same difference.
No, that’s not constitutional. Anyone with half a brain can read the constitutional amendment and know its meaning. We don’t need to pretend we’re all brainless automatons
rather than argue about the generic principles of this argument, i’m going to point out that politically this involves juiceless don jr. winning a general election *on the explicit promise* of sneaking in an 82-year-old Donald.
odds are better for donald to just run and dare anyone to stop him
A) obama specifically has no desire to run, and i think that’s proper. he did his job.
B) a lot of people have mixed feelings about him.
C) the dems aren’t losing because they’re unwilling to cheat, they’re losing because they’re failing to provide a compelling pitch to voters beyond “anti-Trump”
C is less that than the horrid messaging factor of a "popular front": when you're party is essentially made up of everyone but the nazis, messaging gets messed up (why, counterintuitively, a political party working to a narrow sliver actually expands it's appeal)
I agree, but I differ on the third point, which is that America is cooked. If we can’t defeat people who cheat—either with voting or the courts or enforcement of laws—then we will be steamrolled by autocrats until we fight back in kind. Not saying Obama would win or should even run again.
Half the Democratic Party blames the establishment party members, including Obama, for routinely bringing butter knives to gun fights. So I don’t see a groundswell of support for Obama any time soon.
the secretaries of state of the individual states would stop him. Similar to what Colorado attempted, except this time it would require total lawlessness (and not just everyday lawlessness) of SCOTUS to force states to allow him on the ballot.
If that's the sort of thing Trumpists want to do, they might as well keep it simple and claim that the 22nd only forbids more than two *consecutive* terms. That's not true, but if they can get the Supreme Court to agree it is.
It’s great that you’re spending the finite amount of our shared mortal experience doing this kind of mental work. Truly a great thought exercise that leads to enlightenment that benefits the rest of humanity. You could have just made a loaf of bread at home, or maybe some bbq.
I would like to ask if maybe Leonard Leo is paying you to write this stuff that purports to convince us that words and sentences have no plain meaning? This is the kind of thing court watching the Roberts court—which makes stuff up out of whole cloth—has done to rational folks.
Forget a third term. By this logic there are *no* limits to the number of presidential terms one can have, as long as one can find someone to run as president and step aside post election.
We're just trying to point out the most probable loophole they'd use. And anyone that thinks that the current SCOTUS wouldn't drive a motorcoach right through this hasn't been paying attention
Hello, good evening, and welcome to another exciting episode of “The Constitution Doesn’t Really Mean What It Actually Says in Plain English, and Words Have No Actual Meaning!”
Yes, the bedrock principle of our legal system is that you can do anything illegal as long as you do it under false pretenses. I don't have to pay sales taxes as long as me and the shopkeeper are just "exchanging gifts". The law adores a farce.
I wouldn’t say constitutional as much as arguably not explicitly forbidden in the constitution so as to create a weird loophole for bad faith actors with no allegiance to the constitution in any meaningful sense - or to democracy more broadly
“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.”
He’s already been elected twice so should now be ineligible to serve as VP.
Ah, yes, journalists’ rooting for Trump. Most don’t even try to hide their fanaticism anymore. Why on earth would ANY journo be thinking about ways Trump can destroy the Constitution so he can run for a third time when he’s not even in office for his second term? 🙄
This is extremely disturbing and if it was the Dems openly talking about this they would be called Communists and other derogatory terms. Disgusting how little anyone cares for our Democracy.
This is only “(pRoBaBlY) constitutional” in the same sense as passing a law that says it’s a felony to be black and then sending the entire black population of America back to slavery doesn’t technically violate the 13th. If we’re literally THERE already, then “constitutionality” is meaningless.
No. What you’re really doing is laundering yet another slice of the salami tactics by treating it like an actual thought worth considering. It’s the equivalent of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Schrutebucks to Stanley Nickles.
John Eastman came up with a lot of (illegal, unconstitutional) ideas for overturning an election without any help from commentators thinking about how to do it. DJT just has to talk about a 3rd term & every conservative lawyer in the US will look to see how to do it
Not sure why people are attacking Mark and Dahlia here. They are the messengers, not the ones giving advice to trump about how to stay in office a third term. They're pointing out the chicanery that these assholes are going to try to pull in order to do this, that's it.
It is absurd to hypothesize that just because someone gets named as VP they ascend to the presidency if the President resigns or dies or whatever
In such a case, the line of succession must pick up with first person in line who is qualified to serve as President under the Constitution
There is a 10 year limit, as well, but if we just get to change the meaning of anything to work in our advantage then my bank account actually has a trillion dollars in it. That’s what those numbers mean now.
There’s no 10 year limit. One can serve out the remaining 23 months of someone else’s term any number of times. You’re only docked any sort of eligibility when you serve more than 2 years in one term.
I looked at your profile and saw nothing that would make me automatically ban you. So I guess you just posted this for your own theorycrafting and amusement. This is not actually a concern though. I seriously doubt he will be attending rallies in four years. His health does not seem optimal.
Y'all wringing your hands over a scenario that has a super low likelihood of happening. Trump is 78 years old and has shown signs of mental decline for the past several years. If he's even alive in 2028, he'll be drooling all over himself and not know he's president.
I remember Putin pulled a similar trick in Russia to avoid a constitutional restriction on running for consecutive terms as president. So he became prime minister for a term and then ran for president in the next term again. But Trump is decrepit and 2028 is a very long way for him.
I had thought the same course of action with Harris.
I think the real problem is the assumption by voters that when they vote for the presidential ticket, you are essentially voting for the VP to possibly become President during that term.
We are talking about a man who is morbidly obese, sliding into senility, and who allegedly can’t always control his bowels/allegedly wears a diaper. He’s not going to be able to run the country for a full 4 years, let alone run as VP so that he can ascend to a 3rd term via a loophole.
This is a hyper-literal reading divorced from any drafting purpose. It violates canons of interpretation that even the most diehard textualists subscribe to.
Some judges and scholars may endorse this reading, but it wouldn't be "law," just political opportunism, and that's important to point out.
What Scalia and Garner call the presumption against ineffectiveness, i.e., that a textual provision should not be interpreted to be completely inoperative or ineffectual at carrying out what all agree it was intended to do.
It’s not “completely inoperative” if it only limits the number of times you can be elected president. That’s still an operative function, even if we can imagine a differently written amendment with broader scope. So it’s more limited in this reading, but not “completely inoperative”.
It is inoperative with respect to its purpose, which was to limit the number of terms in which a person can serve as president. There is no reason why the drafters would have intended only to prevent a person from being elected more than twice but allow them to ascend via the vice presidency.
The text of the 22A makes a distinction between “being elected president” and “serving out the remainder of a term to which someone else was elected”. The limit only applies to “being elected”, and any other reading renders most of the text inoperative - it makes the distinction meaningless.
Under your reading, the amendment would serve no purpose since a person could accomplish, with this "one neat trick," the very thing that everyone agrees this amendment was actually intended to prohibit.
I don't even think it'll be that complicated. SCOTUS will probably just rule that individual states can't enforce the 22nd Amendment, only Congress can.
and since Congress is mired in perpetual deadlock, the 22nd Amendment becomes effectively unenforceable
This argument epitomizes the crux of our democratic tug of war. We argue legal technicalities as if they matter to voters AND pine for the days when unwritten guidelines were enough to govern.
Authoritarians look decisive by honoring only that which benefits them and make the rest of it up.
Does the fact that the constitution uses the word "he" to refer to the president mean we need a constitutional amendment to permit a woman to hold the office? If not, why not?
Comments
This Supreme Court?
Unfortunately I don’t doubt that Trump would try this. Would anyone even try to stop him? If they tried, would they succeed?
Look at how his machinations have (not) been stopped up to now.😒
Your narrow legalism perhaps is not so useful as a guide
This seems straightforward to me.
If one is ineligible to be president, that person is also ineligible to be vp.
nothing about running or electing or family members
What's the mechanism to stop it?
The arguments being floated right now about how to sneak around are asinine.
If the counter-argument is that the constitution just doesn't matter at all, then why bother going through contortions to try to circumvent it?
And no. If you advance from the VP to the top seat, and serve out only half or less than the predecessor's term, THEN u can have another two full terms. Not vice versa
"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States"
12A
2. GOP wins
3. 1/20 they take office
4. VP immediately resigns
5. Pres nominates Trump as VP
6. Both houses of congress confirms
7. Pres resigns
Does this really seem like a feasible strategy?
To say nothing about the politics and crazy backlash and anger that would provoke. To say nothing that Trump would be 83.
If there’s a way, Trump would find one.
That's why a naturalized Cabinet member would also be skipped, if it came down to that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/12/07/for-albright-success-but-no-succession/0864ee8f-43a4-4d59-ab5d-a26b987eb902/
By which I mean Mark is being stupid. Sorry (not sorry) but this is him being too clever and coming out the other side into plain dumb.
2/10, see me after class.
Then we are stuck with Vance 😔
Embarrassing.
His quote specifically says if one is not eligible to be president, that person is not eligible to be vp.
YAY… another Jags fan.
I’m conflicted. Win? Lose?
don’t care. Whatever’s best long term.
maybe unfair to both with all the injuries etc, but this team was not good from right out the gate. Sometimes it’s best to just move on.
He will be 83 and he's already in the middle of dementia riding a golf cart wearing a $hit filled diaper.
Big deal. Musk bought him a win. He's still a dotard.
"Do this or I cut your inheritance"
Real const. issue us whether we have elections or not.
I think we will, but the pippeteers will have to find somebody new. My money--what's left of it--is on Elon.
To be fair
https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3leexswiu2s24
Please, get a grip.
I do concede that the text isn't very good on this point, though.
The more likely scenario is that the Rs will just nominate him and everyone finds out that there is no one that would in fact enforce these rules.
And if he did, he wouldn't resign to let his father move up to Pres.
These next 4 years will be a wild century of a ride.
that impossible?
odds are better for donald to just run and dare anyone to stop him
B) a lot of people have mixed feelings about him.
C) the dems aren’t losing because they’re unwilling to cheat, they’re losing because they’re failing to provide a compelling pitch to voters beyond “anti-Trump”
Go spend some time with your family people.
I'm sure some high-level Trumpists already have the frameworks for this and several other scenarios sketched out.
We're just trying to point out the most probable loophole they'd use. And anyone that thinks that the current SCOTUS wouldn't drive a motorcoach right through this hasn't been paying attention
Whether you love or hate Obama, this would be a 400+ electoral vote landslide in his favor. People would crawl over broken glass to elect him again.
I’m disappointed you wrote this.
Perhaps the realities of four more years on a 78 yr old man will make all this moot.
He’s already been elected twice so should now be ineligible to serve as VP.
1) nice fanfic man
2) next time think of ways you could theoretically do actual journalism
3) this kind of behavior should be called “sorkin off”
I keep seeing people claim that "the language is plain" that he's ineligible.
But the plain language only says he cannot be elected. "Cannot serve" and "cannot be elected" are not synonyms in any dictionary I'm aware of.
In such a case, the line of succession must pick up with first person in line who is qualified to serve as President under the Constitution
I think the real problem is the assumption by voters that when they vote for the presidential ticket, you are essentially voting for the VP to possibly become President during that term.
Basically a Putin-Medvedev swap scheme.
I wonder who got that idea.
Some judges and scholars may endorse this reading, but it wouldn't be "law," just political opportunism, and that's important to point out.
and since Congress is mired in perpetual deadlock, the 22nd Amendment becomes effectively unenforceable
Authoritarians look decisive by honoring only that which benefits them and make the rest of it up.