Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(160,733 posts)
Sun Mar 30, 2025, 07:15 PM Sunday

Tamping down the third term hype for Trump (good legal analysis as to why trump cannot run for third term)

Believe or not, this issue was discussed a while back when there were discussions about Bill Clinton running as vice-president on a Gore-Clinton ticket. The thought was that Gore would resign after the election and President Clinton could serve a third term. This concept was discussed and rejected.

The three ways that trump could run for a third term (i) a constitutional amendment, (ii) trump running as vice president and then have his running mate resign and (iii) trump becoming speaker of the house and then the POTUS and Vice President resigning.

A constitutional amendment is not likely. https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3380306 It is unlikely that such an amendment could get through congress much less be ratified by the required number of states.

The third option has so many variables that it is also unlikely. trump would have to be appointed/elected as Speaker and then both the POTUS and the VP resign. This option does not have the 12th Amendment issue but has so many variables that it is unlikely

The 12th Amendment is clear that no one can run as VP if they are not eligible to run as POTUS. I agree with the legal analysis set forth below.

https://bsky.app/profile/derektmuller.bsky.social/post/3llmjzwnvdc2l



https://electionlawblog.org/?p=149214
As I told the Associated Press:

Derek Muller, a professor of election law at Notre Dame, noted that the 12th Amendment, which was ratified in 1804, says “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

Muller said that indicates that if Trump is not eligible to run for president again because of the 22nd Amendment, he is not eligible to run for vice president, either.

“I don’t think there’s any ‘one weird trick’ to getting around presidential term limits,” Muller said.

In addition, pursuing a third term would require extraordinary acquiescence by federal and state officials, not to mention the courts and voters themselves.

He suggested that Trump is talking about a third term for political reasons to “show as much strength as possible.”


Now, there’s no question there is potential constitutional ambiguity here, as Professor Brian Kalt has discussed. But scholars like Professor Michael Dorf a quarter century ago were bolstering the idea of a Gore-Clinton ticket in 2000:

Thus, if Clinton were to be elected Vice President, and ascend to the Presidency based on, for example, Mr. Gore’s resignation, then nothing unconstitutional would have occurred. Clinton would have been elected to the Presidency only twice — though he would serve as President thrice. Under the Twenty-Second Amendment, that is perfectly permissible.

. . . But in seeking the Vice-Presidency — a job, in John Nance Garner’s unforgettable phrase, “not worth a bucket of warm spit” — Clinton would hardly be bidding for dictatorial powers.


Similar claims were made by Professor Brian Gray and elsewhere. But in my earlier scholarship, I found this interpretation weaker than the one advanced by Matthew Franck:

It follows from the 22nd Amendment that Bill Clinton, being “constitutionally ineligible” to be elected president, is ineligible to become president by another route. He is, in short, ineligible to be president, and therefore ineligible to become vice president under the 12th amendment.


I agree. But it’s worth noting that if–and I think it’s still a big if–such a gambit arose, there are tremendous complexities in its implementation. Not the least of which is the fact that after Trump v. Anderson, I believe the Court expressly left open the opportunity for states to review qualifications of presidential (and vice-presidential) candidates outside of the 14th Amendment and exclude candidates on that basis. Vice presidential nominations and ballot access deadlines for them occur in late summer, giving an exceedingly truncated window for review–and, frankly, one that may leave a major party without a vice presidential candidate on the ballot in several states with the approval of the United States Supreme Court. (Setting aside, of course, the will power of someone like J.D. Vance relinquishing the presidency.)

I really enjoy Professor Hasen's election law blog. This article made me smile.

Finally, I doubt that trump will live long enough for these options to be necessary.
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Miami Blue

(261 posts)
2. FelonTraitorTrump's Weapons of Mass Distraction
Sun Mar 30, 2025, 08:39 PM
Sunday

As usual, he repeats the same old same old boring shit when he feels impotent 🍄and trapped in a corner.
This little man is just a Coward who has accomplished nothing in his long life, of course apart from being a
Trust.
Fund.
FAT.
Baby.
Btw, the FelonRapist wears orange makeup
to look younger but he looks like Shit still.
SAD



Mountainguy

(1,635 posts)
3. Even if it were possible....
Sun Mar 30, 2025, 08:50 PM
Sunday

What would stop the person who actually won the Presidency from just saying "fuck off."??? "Oh and BTW, here's an EO that declares it a vital national security matter that the VP be totally protected, so we're sending them to a heavily fortified base where they will be kept safely under lock and key."


Besides all that, it's not a viable route. " But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." does a lot of work here.

Wiz Imp

(4,506 posts)
4. This is sheer idiocy. Trump will NOT try to run for a third term
Sun Mar 30, 2025, 08:57 PM
Sunday

Trump would have to ignore the constitution to run for a third term. If he's going to ignore the constitution, why would he do it to go through another election? Answer: he wouldn't. He would ignore the constitution by refusing to leave office, suspend elections, or something like that. He will NEVER go through another election again.

lastlib

(25,614 posts)
5. As I said elsewhere on DU, he's out on or before 1/20/29.....
Sun Mar 30, 2025, 10:34 PM
Sunday

Vertically or horizontally, it's his choice, but he is going. (Personally, I prefer he leave horizontally, but that's me.)

WarGamer

(16,709 posts)
6. I'd like to remind everyone... Putin once stepped down and Medvedev was President for a while.
Sun Mar 30, 2025, 11:02 PM
Sunday

Doesn't mean Putin wasn't calling the shots.

LisaL

(47,155 posts)
7. Trump thinks that Vance will run then "pass the torch" to Trump.
Sun Mar 30, 2025, 11:06 PM
Sunday

So he wants to follow Putin's example. Although I don't know under which mechanism someone can win and "pass the torch" to somebody else.

Self Esteem

(2,022 posts)
8. If the Supreme Court rules that the 22nd doesn't apply to Trump over the "elected" language...
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 09:49 AM
Yesterday

...it absolutely could open the door for him to be eligible and therefore not in violation of the 12th Amendment.

The 22nd explicitly mentions "elected to the office of president more than twice..."

Trump's eligibility would be tied to the Court's interpretation of that. The argument absolutely would be that Trump, if he ascended the presidency through the line of succession, would technically not have been elected to the office of President and therefore, the 22nd does not apply to him and he meets the qualifications under the 12th to be vice president - and more importantly, president if the situation presented itself (resignation, removal or death of the president).

It is a legally sound argument? I don't think so. But I'm not 100% convinced it's an argument that wouldn't win over a majority of the Court.

I think the court would rule against Trump in that matter but I have enough doubt about the Supreme Court that I don't feel its a legal slam dunk.

jmowreader

(52,051 posts)
9. I'm going to throw a wrench in the Speaker path
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 11:53 AM
Yesterday

According to the rules of presidential succession, if someone in the line of succession isn’t eligible to be president that person is skipped over. So…let’s say Trump wanted to make Elon Musk president. He appoints him Secretary of State, then cuts a deal with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and President Pro Tempore of the Senate Chuck Grassley that Trump, JD Vance, Johnson and Grassley resign simultaneously. Musk isn’t eligible to be president, so Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent becomes President.

The reality is that barring an impeachment conviction, a pissed-off MAGAt shooting him dead, Putin throwing him out of a window or Satan calling him home, Trump’s reign of terror ends at noon on January 20, 2029 - and he has to accept that.

republianmushroom

(19,263 posts)
10. Hell, I'm old enough to remember "Immunity for a President, NEVER".
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 12:11 PM
Yesterday

Thank you roberts supreme court.

LetMyPeopleVote

(160,733 posts)
11. MaddowBlog-Despite the Constitution, Trump says he's 'not joking' about eyeing a third term
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 12:48 PM
Yesterday

The 22nd Amendment says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” The incumbent president doesn't fully accept that.
https://bsky.app/profile/stevebenen.com/post/3lloclwudhk2t

If you're just catching up on news from the weekend, Trump said he's "not joking" about possibly trying to pursue a third term.

The Constitution says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." Trump apparently doesn't accept that.



https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/constitution-trump-says-s-not-joking-eyeing-third-term-rcna198827

This strategy came to mind anew upon hearing the Republican talk about possibly pursuing a third term in the White House. NBC News reported:

President Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility of seeking a third term in the White House, which is prohibited by the Constitution under the 22nd Amendment, saying in an exclusive interview with NBC News that there were methods for doing so and clarifying that he was “not joking.” ... “A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump said in a Sunday-morning phone call with NBC News, referring to his allies.


.....In fact, in his interview with NBC News, Trump was hardly subtle. “I’m not joking,” he said, adding that there are “methods” in which he could pursue such a goal.

NBC News asked about a possible scenario in which Vice President JD Vance would run for office and then pass the role to Trump. Trump responded that “that’s one” method. “But there are others, too,” Trump added. Asked to share another method, Trump simply responded “no.”


Hours after the NBC News report reached the public, the president chatted with reporters aboard Air Force One and dodged a series of questions on the topic, though he claimed that “people” have asked him to run for a third term — which he said would be a fourth term “in a way” because his 2020 race was “totally rigged.” (It was not rigged; he lost fair and square, and he’s been lying uncontrollably about this for more than four years.).....

I won’t pretend to know where this is headed or the degree to which the president is prepared to defy constitutional law. But Scott Cummings, a professor of legal ethics at the UCLA School of Law, made a comment on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Friday that stood out for me.

Commenting on autocracies around the world that have consolidated power, Cummings noted that in none of these countries “do leaders do all the things that Trump is doing, take aim at all of these independent institutions, and then just walk away.” Rather, the professor added, authoritarians take these steps because they intend “to stay in power permanently.”

trump needs to stay in power and will try to stay in power anyway that he can

TxGuitar

(4,301 posts)
12. How about this?
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 12:58 PM
Yesterday

The Constitution says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" but I suspect they're thinking running Vance in 28 with some nobody veep, then the veep resigns, Vance appoints Trump veep (assuming the Senate confirms him) and then Vance resigns, thus allowing by then 82 year old Trump to take office since he wasn't "elected" to the position of veep.

LetMyPeopleVote

(160,733 posts)
13. This would not run afoul of the 12th Amendment or the 22nd Amendment
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 01:09 PM
Yesterday

Another alternative is for the GOP to run two nobodies for POTUS and VP and then win the House. The speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the House. trump can be elected Speaker and then the POTUS and VP resign. Again this is unlikely but is possible

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Tamping down the third te...