How to serve more than two terms in office?

Does anyone think this scenario is impossible?

We know the 22nd Amendment prevents Presidents from being elected for more than two terms. The only way anyone has ever served for more than 8 years after the 22cd Amendment was passed is that a person is Vice President and the President leaves office (for whatever reason). If there are less than two years left in that term the VP assumes the office of POTUS for the remaining two years or less. The Vice President can seek to become the president for two more terms serving up to 10 years.

However, I think there is an end-around that makes it possible for a person who served two terms to be president for another term. It’s sneaky and underhanded, but I don’t see anything in the 22cd Amendment that would prevent it.

Let’s say Trump wins two terms. He is disqualified from running again as President, but there is nothing that prevents him from running as a VP and if the person that is elected President steps down, the VP would become President. Likely? No, Impossible, you tell me?

Do you think Trump might do something like that? I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility if he were to win a second term, but hey, that’s just me.

No. After serving as president, it would be way to difficult for any president to serve as VP, both for him and his president. He would know it would be unfair to the president and I really don’t think he would even be tempted.

I think Taft became a supreme court justice after president and I think some other president became a senator. But I can’t imagine President Trump even wanting to serve in any other capacity.

I’m suggesting that the plan would be, ahead of time, for the VP to become President. Knowing this, it would be an end around, would not? I mean, even if you don’t think Trump would, do you think there is anything that prevents it?

It would be too obvious that they would be circumventing rules. No, I don’t think he would be tempted. And if it was planned from the start, I suspect someone would protest.

President Trump could NOT run as someone’s VP after serving two full terms in office because in order to be eligible to run as VP, that person must also be eligible to serve as President and President would NOT be so eligible after having served two terms.

1 Like

Trump will not run as someone’s Vice President. First of all, the party would not give him the nomination. VP’s are most often the selection of the presidential candidate, although there have been exceptions. One was Stevenson in 1956 who threw open the selection of his running mate to the convention.

At any rate, Trump would be barred from running as Vice President because he is disqualified from being president. This can be true for other reasons, like not having reached the age of 35 or not having been born in the United States.

Set aside Trump for a sec. I don’t see anything that bars a former POTUS from running as VP. I agree it should’t be allowed, I agree that few people that serve as POTUS would want to take the “step down” but the 22cd amendment does not stipulate that a person who has served two terms can not be President again under any circumstance.

Here it is…

Section 1

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 President more than once. (the rest of this just deals with the Harry Truman, who was POTUS at the time and the fact that the article does not apply to him - and indeed he ran for a 3rd term but he dropped his bid after he lost the NH primary) But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Notice that it specifically stipulates “no person shall be elected”. Ascending to the office from the position of VP is the end of this amendment.


Now for the record, I don’t think this should ever be allowed, I’m just pointing out that it’s not clear and I’d hate to see someone try it as I think it would create a shitstorm of epic proportions.

Now, if you are a constitutionalist and you believe in a literal interpretation of the text rather than trying to interpret it, how would anyone be prevented, constitutionally from doing what I’ve just said?

Read what the eligibility requirements are in order to be VICE President, CSB. THAT’S what’s controlling. You can’t be VP unless you are ALSO eligible to be President. No one who has term-limited out of the Presidency (and therefore cannot SERVE as President) is eligible to serve as VP.

I think that’s a legitimate interpretation, so lets explore that (my comments in bold)

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Ok, nothing so far

At the time of taking office, the President must be:

  • a natural born citizen
  • at least 35 years old
  • an inhabitant of the United States for at least fourteen years.

A person who meets the above qualifications, however, may still be constitutionally barred from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:

  • Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, gives the U.S. Senate the option of forever disqualifying anyone convicted in an impeachment case from holding any federal office.[7]

That’s interesting…

  • Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, from becoming president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.
  • The 22nd Amendment prohibits anyone from being elected to the presidency more than twice (or once if the person serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a presidential term to which someone else was originally elected).

Again, the 22nd amendment expressly prohibits a person from being elected, it does not say they cannot ascend to the office.

These are the eligibility requirements, I don’t see anything here that disqualifies a President from being a VP.

Do you?

None of what you quoted covers the requirements to serve as VP, CSB. QUIT obfuscating.

2 Likes

Grief. I think I actually agree with csbrown on something.

But regardless, it would have the appearance of being underhanded, devious, or purposefully skirting the clear intent of the Constitution. That’s not generally the way President Trump does things. (Except for calling his last few campaign rallies “peaceful protests” to circumvent rules made by stupid governors.)

This vice president smoke screen is something Putin as done.

This whole argument is silly. What we need to worry about is if the election can’t be settled and Pelosi gets to be president. There are stronger possibility of that then there is of Trump getting a third term by using a a vice presidential back door.

So, here’s the issue. I completely agree with this statement. So it would likely fall to the SC.

How should they rule? By the letter of the law, or do you think they should interpret the intentions of the rule itself? because I think we can all agree that two terms means 2 terms period, And doing an end-around is not what was intended.

The problem I see (and this example is indicative of others) is that there are many laws, amendments and rules that aren’t bullet proof and they require:

  1. The law to be updated

OR

  1. The courts to interpret what they believe was intended by the law.

The problem I see is that we know about these issues, but don’t address them until its too late.

The problem comes when one ideological side (left or right} on the SC votes in favor of their ideological side using #1 or #2 depending how the ruling affects the party they are affiliated with.

There should be a process for identifying these conflicts BEFORE they are before the court to avoid accusations of politics.

The reality is the 22nd amendment won’t be redrafted to exclude former Presidents until it’s too late.

Look, I’m just choosing something to talk about that isn’t completely and totally partisan. Something we don’t have to call each other idiots over.

Neither of us have a vested interest in the topic right now, but it’s still interesting to think about and it’s kinda nice to have a discussion that isn’t completely adversarial…

So then post them.

I am not so sure about that, the language is pretty specific to being"elected" more than two terms as opposed to “serving” more than two terms?

Either way it’s a no on Trump doing it, as tireless as the man is his age will eventually prevent him from doing this job; as Bob Segar said “everybody walks into the crowded line” :wink:

Shakedown

Me right now…

image

Oh yes, it is partisan. When Trump joked about running for president forever, the Democrats had a cow.

Well, let’s you and I leave the partisan nature of the question out of it, since we’re not really faced with the question. The President has to get their first and honestly It’s not looking to me like he’s even going to get the chance.

No, I am afraid that Donald Trump will lose this election one way or the other. The Democrats will probably take the Senate too because the Republicans have too many seats at risk.

The thing really burns me up about you is that if the Democrats, like Omar and AOC, really get bad, you won’t say anything about what they are up to. Of course we probably won’t be able to say anything because the Democrats will have shut down free speech to the point where we will be powerless.

Yes, that’s what I think your party. It is gone far left and wants to have a system more like China that what we have had here.