7 ms·

He can't run again.

zamalek 2y ago
You say that now. Every system designed to protect the constitution has been captured by him. America has 4 years to set things right, it had better make it count.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Supreme Court Judges have careers that outlive Presidents. I think people consistently misinterpret the overturning of Roe (a calculated, focused effort that took decades and overturned specific judicial precedent that basically had created a right-to-privacy from whole cloth) with "Trump has SCOTUS in his pocket." He doesn't. The GOP got the two things they wanted from tilting the SCOTUS in their direction; there's no reason to believe this SCOTUS is about to start looking at the bare-face text of the Twenty Second Amendment and decide there aren't any words there. The incentives just aren't there. Especially because it's pretty obvious that if they do ignore that text, it becomes pitchfork time and their necks are no less vulnerable than the President's. (ETA: And that's ignoring that individual states are not obligated to put him on the ballot if he's inelligible to run for a third term, and by-and-large, Americans do not vote for names not on the ballot because they don't know their own civil rights).
  - fundad 2y ago
    This is assuming one needs to campaign in an election in order to continue their command of the executive branch and the military. I'm pretty sure the president's claim that he can serve a 3rd term means he'll serve for however long he determines, as an official act. Any court that dares issue an order to the contrary will have as little power to enforce their order as they are demonstrating now.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      He could certainly kick off a Constitutional crisis by just ignoring the law, on that we agree. But that's always a risk. He could make a kill list of Congress members to assassinate starting alphabetically and it would be the same category of problem.
      - fundad 2y ago
        And the same people would defend it as not a constitutional crisis for whatever reason Fox News ran with.
  - rfrey 2y ago
    For me, it was the assertion of presidential immunity that lost my trust.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      That's complicated, but not actually unexpected. The Constitution lays out the process and authority to check the President's power, and that process flows from Congress. SCOTUS essentially said "If Congress didn't even find a violation that moved them to invoke their maximum penalty of removal-from-office, why on Earth does anyone think we would impose the law to punish the President's official actions where Congress did not?" SCOTUS can restrain Presidential action (by saying, essentially, "that order is illegal" so nobody need comply) but they've never claimed to have the authority to punish the person in the office for doing the job as best he can. Granted, this was new territory because no previous administration had opened the question of such a sanction... But it's not surprising that SCOTUS responded "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff? Hold on, let me check the Constitution... Nope, don't see it."
      - hydrolox 2y ago
        I get what you're arguing but isn't "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff" a bit charitable? "Nope, don't see it" isn't so simple, I think a lot of people would argue that this follows from the rule of law set down in the constitution in the form of things like the supremacy clause and implied by our entire legal/political structure.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        > isn't "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff" a bit charitable? One of our Presidents, against the will of Congress and in an era where the right to levy war on the part of Congress was far more closely tied to troop deployment (because we weren't yet in the era of Pax Americana with permanent overseas bases on every continent, much less the post-9/11 era of massive power delegation to the Executive), moved our Naval assets away from the Atlantic coast toward Europe and basically tried to hide it from Congress. It would have been extremely impeachable... But then we ended up in a World War soon after. A war we, conveniently, already had our Atlantic assets positioned to fight, over the previous desires of an isolationist American representative legislature. That President never came under question of whether he should be jailed for putting Americans in harm's way when we were not involved in the European conflict (yet), and Congress had no intention of involving the country (yet). The things Trump did in office were far less risky to life and limb. I'm not implying they were correct or just things; I'm saying that when we talk about whether the other branches should be able to jail the President for malfeasance in-office, this is the realm of decisions and standards we're talking about.
  - smw 2y ago
    He was ineligible this time based on the 14th amendment, but SCOTUS told Colorado they couldn't keep him off the ballot.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      Unfortunately, he was never convicted of treason or any other crime that would involve the 14th Amendment. I think we can understand why SCOTUS would ban Colorado from making that decision themselves, for much the same reason it bans Mississippi from having its own interpretation of the parts of the 14th Amendment about due process or citizenship. In contrast, the 22nd Amendment is plain-letter law, so obvious that it brooks no interpretation.
      - insane_dreamer 2y ago
        I disagree it's as obvious as you think. He could run for VP and then act as de-facto President. It says that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" - in that case, he would have been _elected_ Vice President, not President. And as as far as the 12th Amendment goes, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The 22nd amendment doesn't explicitly say he cannot serve as President, it just says "no person shall be _elected_ to the office of President". Yes, the spirit of the constitution clearly prevents a 3rd term, but it could be possible to employ a very literal interpretation that allows the above.
forgetfreeman 2y ago
Keep watching. He's got close to 4 years to figure out how to cross that Rubicon.
Supermancho 2y ago
I think this is a foolish belief. > The third presidential term of Franklin D. Roosevelt began on January 20, 1941, when he was once again inaugurated as the 32nd president of the United States, and the fourth term of his presidency ended with his death on April 12, 1945 There's already precedent.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  There's a whole Amendment about this.[1] [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    One inferred point of the article is that eroding the first amendment makes the rest less imposing to circumvent.
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      I think it's the other way around: giving an insurrectionist the most powerful office in the land, a violation of the 14th, is a recipe for wanton malfeasance in office. All the other violations were made possible by that first one.
  - mptest 2y ago
    True, famously, this administration is strictly bound by laws. Don't worry guys, we're safe.
  - gcanyon 2y ago
    They're already pitching the idea that the 22nd amendment only prevents someone who had two consecutive terms from running again. Looking at the language of the amendment, I have no idea how they can justify that. But stranger things have happened recently. :-/
- mattnewton 2y ago
  The 22nd amendment was passed after that though. FDR was seen as getting America out of the Great Depression and navigating America through WW2 successfully. Oh and alcohol became legal again so you could celebrate the roaring manufacturing economy and military victories with a beer. Trump is no FDR.
mattnewton 2y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/politics/trump-third-term.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/politics/trump-third-t... I agree but he doesn’t and neither do his voters.
School-Cotton 2y ago
Why not? Because a piece of paper says he’s not allowed to? Pieces of paper say a lot of things; sometimes they’re followed, sometimes not.
- cmurf 2y ago
  If that piece of paper isn't being followed, what are the rules of the game? And are you agreeing that force does settle it? Should it? John Adams might agree with you though. He said the constitution was intended for a moral (and religious) people. Maybe Americans are simply out of virtue, and don't deserve the Constitution anymore? Sounds pretty expensive.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    To be clear, I hope it’s followed; I’m just not confident it will be. Nayib Bukele is limited to one term by the Salvadoran constitution. He’s currently on his second. Turns out that if nobody stops you, you can just do whatever you want.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  That "piece of paper" is the only thing saying that the president has any power. He wants us to not follow it? Fine, but he may not like the consequences, which are that he's no longer someone that we have to listen to or who has any actual power. He's just a real estate developer who thinks he's somebody important.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    > That "piece of paper" is the only thing saying that the president has any power. No it isn't. People have power because people with guns follow their orders, not because of what a piece of paper says.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      And the people with guns swore an oath to the piece of paper, not to the man. If the piece of paper stops saying that he's the man...
lynndotpy 2y ago
Trump that he's serious about running for a third term and that there are methods to do it. That was just earlier today. https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22nd-amendment-efba31be02ee96b0ef68b17fe89b7578 https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22n... We've had ten years of "Trump can't do X."
- outer_web 2y ago
  Yes but we've also had ten years of flooding the zone. I am inclined to believe this is the latter. He will get everything he needs from this term - primarily an escape from his Jan 6 and classified documents charges.
  - prawn 2y ago
    I think raising the third term was largely about pushing Signalgate off the front pages, and of course it worked.
nsxwolf 2y ago
He can be VP and then succeed by the president stepping down.
- eclipticplane 2y ago
  You cannot become VP if you are not _also_ eligible to be President.
- m-hodges 2y ago
  The 12th Amendment disagrees: > But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
  - g-b-r 2y ago
    Elected as speaker of the house, then, as has already been said
  - nsxwolf 2y ago
    But the 22nd amendment forbids being elected to the office more than twice. Eligibility to serve as president may not be the same as eligibility to be elected president. This would have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
twright 2y ago
On paper he can't do a lot of things but the amount of gutting and cutting that's happened in the last two(!) months makes one realize the laws aren't worth the paper they're written on without a proactive congress interested in keeping the executive in check. Suspending birthright citizenship as established in the 14th amendment is a big one that "he can't do." Challenges to E.O. 14160 are going through the courts right now so we'll see. Legally speaking, I think an outright challenge to the 22nd amendment will be interesting. As a 20th century amendment the language is pretty clear. But once again we look to what would actually enforce it?
- winter_blue 2y ago
  The scotus would need to strike down the 22nd amendment. Even with as horribly morally bankrupt of a scotus as we have now, I don’t think they’d sink to the low of striking down the 22nd.
  - outer_web 2y ago
    I don't believe scotus can invalidate an amendment. The best they can do is interpret it in a way that allows a third term.
    - winter_blue 2y ago
      The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down a constitutional amendment, that is true. But in other common law countries, like India, whose legal system is very similar to the U.S., have had cases where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment. For more on this, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine With regard to the Indian case above: while I support the goal of judgement, as the goal of the judgment itself is good, the idea of a Supreme Court overriding a constitutional amendment is quite startling. The supreme courts of several other countries, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda have copied this doctrine. Who knows when the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to copy this doctrine as well.
asveikau 2y ago
Putin was also term limited around 2012 iirc? This is what these people do.
nl 2y ago
He's stated he is contemplating getting Vance to run, then for Vance to step down in favor of Trump. > Trump, 78, said in the interview that he was serious about seeking a third term in office. > "A lot of people want me to do it," Trump said, according to NBC News. "But we have – my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I'm focused on the current." > When asked about specific plans for seeking a third term, Trump confirmed one method — Vice President JD Vance wins the White House in a future election and then hands over the presidency. Trump said there were other plans, but he refused to say what they wer https://www.npr.org/2025/03/30/g-s1-57231/trump-third-term https://www.npr.org/2025/03/30/g-s1-57231/trump-third-term
- vlovich123 2y ago
  That plan fails the requirement that to run for Vice president you have to be eligible for president. But sure, Trump trying to pull what Putin did with Medvedev in the 2000s seems about right for a wannabe dictator.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > He's stated he is contemplating getting Vance to run, then for Vance to step down in favor of Trump Technically illegal due to the Twelfth Amendment: “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States” [1]. Simpler: run two randos, have the House choose Trump as Speaker [2], have the randos resign [3]. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-congress-requirements-qualifications-kevin-mccarthy-ouster-donald-trump/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-con... [3] https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession
  - nkurz 2y ago
    I presume you are familiar with the standard counter argument that the Constitution says "elected" rather than "serve"? Here's a Constitutional law professor arguing 25 years ago that Bill Clinton was constitutionally eligible to run again as VP: https://web.archive.org/web/20051001004410/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/columns/fl.dorf.goreclinton.08.01/ https://web.archive.org/web/20051001004410/http://archives.c... It's easy to claim that Trump running as VP would violate the spirit of the 12th amendment, but I think there is genuine doubt as to how the Supreme Court might rule. Separately, could you contact me by the email in my profile? I've got a (mostly unrelated) question I've been meaning to ask you. No hurry.

He can't run again.

You say that now. Every system designed to protect the constitution has been captured by him. America has 4 years to set things right, it had better make it count.

shadowgovt 2y ago
Supreme Court Judges have careers that outlive Presidents. I think people consistently misinterpret the overturning of Roe (a calculated, focused effort that took decades and overturned specific judicial precedent that basically had created a right-to-privacy from whole cloth) with "Trump has SCOTUS in his pocket." He doesn't. The GOP got the two things they wanted from tilting the SCOTUS in their direction; there's no reason to believe this SCOTUS is about to start looking at the bare-face text of the Twenty Second Amendment and decide there aren't any words there. The incentives just aren't there. Especially because it's pretty obvious that if they do ignore that text, it becomes pitchfork time and their necks are no less vulnerable than the President's. (ETA: And that's ignoring that individual states are not obligated to put him on the ballot if he's inelligible to run for a third term, and by-and-large, Americans do not vote for names not on the ballot because they don't know their own civil rights).
- fundad 2y ago
  This is assuming one needs to campaign in an election in order to continue their command of the executive branch and the military. I'm pretty sure the president's claim that he can serve a 3rd term means he'll serve for however long he determines, as an official act. Any court that dares issue an order to the contrary will have as little power to enforce their order as they are demonstrating now.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    He could certainly kick off a Constitutional crisis by just ignoring the law, on that we agree. But that's always a risk. He could make a kill list of Congress members to assassinate starting alphabetically and it would be the same category of problem.
    - fundad 2y ago
      And the same people would defend it as not a constitutional crisis for whatever reason Fox News ran with.
- rfrey 2y ago
  For me, it was the assertion of presidential immunity that lost my trust.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    That's complicated, but not actually unexpected. The Constitution lays out the process and authority to check the President's power, and that process flows from Congress. SCOTUS essentially said "If Congress didn't even find a violation that moved them to invoke their maximum penalty of removal-from-office, why on Earth does anyone think we would impose the law to punish the President's official actions where Congress did not?" SCOTUS can restrain Presidential action (by saying, essentially, "that order is illegal" so nobody need comply) but they've never claimed to have the authority to punish the person in the office for doing the job as best he can. Granted, this was new territory because no previous administration had opened the question of such a sanction... But it's not surprising that SCOTUS responded "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff? Hold on, let me check the Constitution... Nope, don't see it."
    - hydrolox 2y ago
      I get what you're arguing but isn't "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff" a bit charitable? "Nope, don't see it" isn't so simple, I think a lot of people would argue that this follows from the rule of law set down in the constitution in the form of things like the supremacy clause and implied by our entire legal/political structure.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        > isn't "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff" a bit charitable? One of our Presidents, against the will of Congress and in an era where the right to levy war on the part of Congress was far more closely tied to troop deployment (because we weren't yet in the era of Pax Americana with permanent overseas bases on every continent, much less the post-9/11 era of massive power delegation to the Executive), moved our Naval assets away from the Atlantic coast toward Europe and basically tried to hide it from Congress. It would have been extremely impeachable... But then we ended up in a World War soon after. A war we, conveniently, already had our Atlantic assets positioned to fight, over the previous desires of an isolationist American representative legislature. That President never came under question of whether he should be jailed for putting Americans in harm's way when we were not involved in the European conflict (yet), and Congress had no intention of involving the country (yet). The things Trump did in office were far less risky to life and limb. I'm not implying they were correct or just things; I'm saying that when we talk about whether the other branches should be able to jail the President for malfeasance in-office, this is the realm of decisions and standards we're talking about.
- smw 2y ago
  He was ineligible this time based on the 14th amendment, but SCOTUS told Colorado they couldn't keep him off the ballot.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Unfortunately, he was never convicted of treason or any other crime that would involve the 14th Amendment. I think we can understand why SCOTUS would ban Colorado from making that decision themselves, for much the same reason it bans Mississippi from having its own interpretation of the parts of the 14th Amendment about due process or citizenship. In contrast, the 22nd Amendment is plain-letter law, so obvious that it brooks no interpretation.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      I disagree it's as obvious as you think. He could run for VP and then act as de-facto President. It says that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" - in that case, he would have been _elected_ Vice President, not President. And as as far as the 12th Amendment goes, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The 22nd amendment doesn't explicitly say he cannot serve as President, it just says "no person shall be _elected_ to the office of President". Yes, the spirit of the constitution clearly prevents a 3rd term, but it could be possible to employ a very literal interpretation that allows the above.

forgetfreeman 2y ago

Keep watching. He's got close to 4 years to figure out how to cross that Rubicon.

Supermancho 2y ago

I think this is a foolish belief. > The third presidential term of Franklin D. Roosevelt began on January 20, 1941, when he was once again inaugurated as the 32nd president of the United States, and the fourth term of his presidency ended with his death on April 12, 1945 There's already precedent.

mullingitover 2y ago
There's a whole Amendment about this.[1] [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/
- Supermancho 2y ago
  One inferred point of the article is that eroding the first amendment makes the rest less imposing to circumvent.
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    I think it's the other way around: giving an insurrectionist the most powerful office in the land, a violation of the 14th, is a recipe for wanton malfeasance in office. All the other violations were made possible by that first one.
- mptest 2y ago
  True, famously, this administration is strictly bound by laws. Don't worry guys, we're safe.
- gcanyon 2y ago
  They're already pitching the idea that the 22nd amendment only prevents someone who had two consecutive terms from running again. Looking at the language of the amendment, I have no idea how they can justify that. But stranger things have happened recently. :-/
mattnewton 2y ago
The 22nd amendment was passed after that though. FDR was seen as getting America out of the Great Depression and navigating America through WW2 successfully. Oh and alcohol became legal again so you could celebrate the roaring manufacturing economy and military victories with a beer. Trump is no FDR.

mattnewton 2y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/politics/trump-third-term.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/politics/trump-third-t... I agree but he doesn’t and neither do his voters.

School-Cotton 2y ago

Why not? Because a piece of paper says he’s not allowed to? Pieces of paper say a lot of things; sometimes they’re followed, sometimes not.

cmurf 2y ago
If that piece of paper isn't being followed, what are the rules of the game? And are you agreeing that force does settle it? Should it? John Adams might agree with you though. He said the constitution was intended for a moral (and religious) people. Maybe Americans are simply out of virtue, and don't deserve the Constitution anymore? Sounds pretty expensive.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  To be clear, I hope it’s followed; I’m just not confident it will be. Nayib Bukele is limited to one term by the Salvadoran constitution. He’s currently on his second. Turns out that if nobody stops you, you can just do whatever you want.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
That "piece of paper" is the only thing saying that the president has any power. He wants us to not follow it? Fine, but he may not like the consequences, which are that he's no longer someone that we have to listen to or who has any actual power. He's just a real estate developer who thinks he's somebody important.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  > That "piece of paper" is the only thing saying that the president has any power. No it isn't. People have power because people with guns follow their orders, not because of what a piece of paper says.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    And the people with guns swore an oath to the piece of paper, not to the man. If the piece of paper stops saying that he's the man...

lynndotpy 2y ago

Trump that he's serious about running for a third term and that there are methods to do it. That was just earlier today. https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22nd-amendment-efba31be02ee96b0ef68b17fe89b7578 https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22n... We've had ten years of "Trump can't do X."

outer_web 2y ago
Yes but we've also had ten years of flooding the zone. I am inclined to believe this is the latter. He will get everything he needs from this term - primarily an escape from his Jan 6 and classified documents charges.
- prawn 2y ago
  I think raising the third term was largely about pushing Signalgate off the front pages, and of course it worked.

nsxwolf 2y ago

He can be VP and then succeed by the president stepping down.

eclipticplane 2y ago
You cannot become VP if you are not _also_ eligible to be President.
m-hodges 2y ago
The 12th Amendment disagrees: > But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
- g-b-r 2y ago
  Elected as speaker of the house, then, as has already been said
- nsxwolf 2y ago
  But the 22nd amendment forbids being elected to the office more than twice. Eligibility to serve as president may not be the same as eligibility to be elected president. This would have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

twright 2y ago

On paper he can't do a lot of things but the amount of gutting and cutting that's happened in the last two(!) months makes one realize the laws aren't worth the paper they're written on without a proactive congress interested in keeping the executive in check. Suspending birthright citizenship as established in the 14th amendment is a big one that "he can't do." Challenges to E.O. 14160 are going through the courts right now so we'll see. Legally speaking, I think an outright challenge to the 22nd amendment will be interesting. As a 20th century amendment the language is pretty clear. But once again we look to what would actually enforce it?

winter_blue 2y ago
The scotus would need to strike down the 22nd amendment. Even with as horribly morally bankrupt of a scotus as we have now, I don’t think they’d sink to the low of striking down the 22nd.
- outer_web 2y ago
  I don't believe scotus can invalidate an amendment. The best they can do is interpret it in a way that allows a third term.
  - winter_blue 2y ago
    The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down a constitutional amendment, that is true. But in other common law countries, like India, whose legal system is very similar to the U.S., have had cases where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment. For more on this, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine With regard to the Indian case above: while I support the goal of judgement, as the goal of the judgment itself is good, the idea of a Supreme Court overriding a constitutional amendment is quite startling. The supreme courts of several other countries, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda have copied this doctrine. Who knows when the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to copy this doctrine as well.

asveikau 2y ago

Putin was also term limited around 2012 iirc? This is what these people do.

nl 2y ago

He's stated he is contemplating getting Vance to run, then for Vance to step down in favor of Trump. > Trump, 78, said in the interview that he was serious about seeking a third term in office. > "A lot of people want me to do it," Trump said, according to NBC News. "But we have – my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I'm focused on the current." > When asked about specific plans for seeking a third term, Trump confirmed one method — Vice President JD Vance wins the White House in a future election and then hands over the presidency. Trump said there were other plans, but he refused to say what they wer https://www.npr.org/2025/03/30/g-s1-57231/trump-third-term https://www.npr.org/2025/03/30/g-s1-57231/trump-third-term

vlovich123 2y ago
That plan fails the requirement that to run for Vice president you have to be eligible for president. But sure, Trump trying to pull what Putin did with Medvedev in the 2000s seems about right for a wannabe dictator.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> He's stated he is contemplating getting Vance to run, then for Vance to step down in favor of Trump Technically illegal due to the Twelfth Amendment: “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States” [1]. Simpler: run two randos, have the House choose Trump as Speaker [2], have the randos resign [3]. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-congress-requirements-qualifications-kevin-mccarthy-ouster-donald-trump/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-con... [3] https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession
- nkurz 2y ago
  I presume you are familiar with the standard counter argument that the Constitution says "elected" rather than "serve"? Here's a Constitutional law professor arguing 25 years ago that Bill Clinton was constitutionally eligible to run again as VP: https://web.archive.org/web/20051001004410/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/columns/fl.dorf.goreclinton.08.01/ https://web.archive.org/web/20051001004410/http://archives.c... It's easy to claim that Trump running as VP would violate the spirit of the 12th amendment, but I think there is genuine doubt as to how the Supreme Court might rule. Separately, could you contact me by the email in my profile? I've got a (mostly unrelated) question I've been meaning to ask you. No hurry.