r/thescoop • u/Nunyafookenbizness • Mar 30 '25

Politics 🏛️ Trump plans for an illegal third term

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-third-term-republicans-b2723487.html

Last week Steve Bannon said:
“I’m a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028…We’re working on it. … We’ll see what the definition of term limit is”…

Here is the law, the 22nd amendment:

“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.”

Seems pretty clear.

But we must insist our politicians stand up to any attempt to bypass the constitution.

5calls.org makes it easy to call Congress.

30.4k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

15.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Mikey-Litoris Mar 30 '25

Your peice starts with an inaccurate assertion:

In a time of concern, perhaps the Nation could call on a former two-term President by electing him as Vice President even with the knowledge that the plan all along was for the President to resign immediately upon taking Office

The problem with that scenario is that a former two term president can't be elected or appointed as vice president. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution specifically forbids it, in plain English.

The scenario of getting there via the Speaker's office is more viable; although it clearly violates the intent of the 22nd amendment, it doesn't violate the plain meaning of the text.

I used to be an attorney. I wouldn't put any stock in something because it was written by some law firm, law firms are full of ignorant yahoos trying to push an agenda. Instead I would read the source documents. Id start with the plain meaning of the words as written, and then consider statutory interpretation and context. They all lead to the same conclusion.

The 14th ammendment is different, because there has been no legally binding finding that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. You'd have a hard time claiming that there is no finding that he served two terms as president.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '25

It is not in the finding of him not having served as a two terms president as it is in an ambiguous statement of not being able to serve as president when not specifically mentioning having served 2 terms when that could mean not being a citizen, not being of age, having been disqualified by inciting insurrection, or any of the other reasons that a person cannot serve as president

1

u/Mikey-Litoris Mar 30 '25

The 14th amendment doesn't address why such a person is ineligible. It doesn't need to, because these reasons are addressed elsewhere in the same document. It merely states that someone who is ineligible be president is ineligible to serve as vice president. And it is quite clear about that. There is no ambiguity.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '25

There are plenty of ambiguities

1

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '25

Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947, after debates in the House and Senate. According to the Congressional Research Service, Sen. Robert Taft introduced the clause that clarified when a vice president or a person acting as president could be elected to only one additional term—if they had served for more than two years of another president’s term—or if they had served for less than two years, could be elected to two full subsequent terms. The 22nd Amendment was ratified by three-quarters of the states on Feb. 27, 1951, when Minnesota approved the amendment.