Critique this Trump Third Term plan

Politics & Elections
1

Note: For the sake of this thread, let’s assume that the 22nd Amendment means exactly what it says - that Trump can serve a third term as long as he is not directly elected to a third term. I know we debate that in other threads and maybe that discussion deserves its own thread but here, we assume that Trump can constitutionally do some sort of end-around and still become President.

Premise #1: Some states allow candidates on the ballot even if they are not eligible to the presidency. I remember New York used to have non-NBC on their ballot with the assumption that the VP candidate (if elected) would serve as President. In states where Trump is not allowed on the ballot, an alternate Republican ticket runs like Cruz & Vance. I don’t know how many states are like that but that leads us to

Premise #2: Some states allow faithless electors. In these states, electors can act as Hamiltonian electors and vote for whomever they want.

Assumption #1: The Democratic candidate does not receive 270 electoral votes.
Assumption #2: Given the above premises, the Republican electors assure that Trump receives some electoral votes but that no Republican receives 270 electoral votes.

12th Amendment: and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote

Assumption #3: The House as composed on January 3, 2029 has at least 26 state delegations controlled by Republicans.

Given this scenario, with no candidate receiving 270 electoral votes, the House votes from the top 3 EV receivers. Trump being one of these, they vote Trump in as President. Since he was not directly elected by the Electoral College, the 22nd Amendment does not apply as confirmed by SCOTUS in the inevitable lawsuit.

What do y’all think about this plan. Would it work? Has MAGA thought about this?

Note: Since Vance is the VP candidate in every state and we assumed that the Democrat did not get 270 EVs, that he is elected outright for the Vice-Presidency.

2

At the point the Supreme Court accepts such a mangled exception to a Constitutional amendment, we are effectively a dictatorship. Once the Constitution is broken, there is no need for loopholes. It would be easier and no more unconstitutional for Trump to just write an executive order saying he’s staying and anybody who doesn’t like it needs to leave the country or be arrested / killed.

3

I think you’re forgetting about another part of the constitution. He’s simply not eligible now for another term.

4

I think the 22nd Amendment means he cannot be elected president by any finagled means. Doesn’t matter if popular vote, Congress, Electoral College, slate of electors, swap-this-guy-for-that-guy shenanigans, whatever = he can’t be elected.

And as Elmer_JFudd said, if SCOTUS does let him win anyway, then we’ve got bigger problems than the Constitution to worry about at that point.

5

Yes he is, just not to be elected.
Even if we disagree, in this thread

6

I mean, yes, if you take as given all of your premises and assumptions then it might work.

Although I think that SCOTUS is likely to rule that the 12A mechanism for resolving a situation where nobody gets a majority of EV is still an election, and thus runs afoul of the 22A provisions against being elected a third time. It seems pretty clear to me that the result of the counting of the votes of the electors at the joint session is, for the purposes of the 22A, “the election”.

Also, how exactly is the GOP going to sell this plan to voters? Vote for Trump where you can, but vote for Vance otherwise, knowing that some (but not all!) of those electors will actually vote for Trump. And then, if we happen to hold the majority of House delegations, Trump will be elected (well, not elected, but you know…). Oh, and if some of our House delegations get cold feet about this completely ahistorical and insane plan then the Democrat will be elected.

It’s bonkers. And surely Trump would much rather cement his legacy by endorsing Vance or getting some other protege in the office rather than pursue this half-brained scheme which even if it works will put him alongside FDR in the “presidents that pissed on Washington’s legacy” pantheon.

7

I cannot see why not. The Republicans won a majority of the electoral votes. The Republicans in the House sorted out who gets the nuclear football and then told that to the Secret Service and, uh, Department of War.

SCOTUS is mostly GOP, and, besides does not want to take responsibility. They would not take the case.

We already have a hybrid regime. The Constitution does not apply. It is up to the military, and they will defer to the body that is supposed to set their salaries.

What if Pres. Cruz sends a veto message while Pres. Trump signs the bill? I think Congress will act like it was signed. SCOTUS won’t care.

P.S. However, I agree with the previously stated idea that these games would cost the GOP needed November general election votes.

8

Where the Hell does the 22nd Amendment say “directly elected”? Even the normal way we do it isn’t “directly”. That kind of deliberate misreading of a very clear rule is no more legitimate than Trump just declaring himself dictator. There is no need for such an obvious misreading of the Constitution.

9

Right where SCOTUS says it is. That smudge there. (Points then runs away as you are looking for it)
In reality, I’m sure there was some court case way back when where “elected” implies “elected by the electoral college” and if not, fake it until you make it.

SCOTUS has to put a fig-leaf of constitutionality on it even if they need to redefine key words in the Constitution to means something else like they did in Kelo v New London, CT.

10

When SCOTUS gets to that point, there is no need to for anybody to argue 2+2=5. Just do whatever you want. Fig leaves are totally pointless if they are made of glass.

ETA: To illustrate my point. Why not just have SCOTUS say the 1st Amendment is secret code for Trump gets to be “President for Life”? That is no more silly than adding absent words to the 22nd.

11

Actually vote for Cruz. Vance is VP on all states ballots. And the beauty is they just need to vote for the Republican ticket in each state. Maybe that alone will result in Dem, Cruz & Trump not receiving 270 votes. If not, then RNC calls Hamiltonian electors and tell them to vote Cruz/Trump as need be to get one of them under 270.

I’d say the casting of votes in the respective state capitals since Congress takes on the role of tellers.

The House would choose one of them as President (Trump).

Quite possibly. Americans sometimes hate it when they see a politician trying to game the system. Look at the reaction to popular FDR’s plan to stack the Supreme Court. And let’s not forget with as stupid as Americans are and how close swing states are, it is possible that Trumpanistas will write in Trump’s name enough in those states to split the Pub vote and the Dem wins it.

12

I may be fighting the hypothetical, but the 22nd Amendment still says, “No person shall be elected President more than twice.” Period. It doesn’t say “No person shall be elected President more than twice unless they come up with some elaborate ruse method to get elected.”

No matter how much of a complex Rube Goldberg machine the MAGAs invent to try to get Trump in again in 2028, it ultimately all boils down to only two possible outcomes:

  1. The Supreme Court rules against Trump, as it almost certainly will.

or

  1. The Supreme Court somehow lets Trump be president again regardless of the Constitution, at which point, like Elmer_JFudd said, we’re in a dictatorship/regime era anyway and we have much bigger problems to worry about than the Constitution.
13

Again (and yes you are fighting the hypothetical), becoming and being elected are two completely different things and there is no bar to serving a third term. Let’s say Trump is Speaker of the House and the President & VP both die so Trump becomes President. Would you say he was elected President? That’s twisting the wording as bad as SCOTUS would do.

14

For the sake of this argument, are we to assume that the rest of the Constitution doesn’t exist?

15

Of all the MAGA sycophants willing to go along with the ruse of getting just enough electoral votes to lose, I can’t imagine Ted fucking Cruz doing it. How humiliating for him.

Actually I just thought of another potential problem.

Most states, at least the ones I’ve read election law for, require that the major party nominees be named by the parties. I’m not sure how it would work if the GOP attempted to name Trump as their nominee in some states but Cruz in others. This would probably come down to the exact wording in the various states.

16

I just pulled his name as a random MAGist. Could be Noem or Rubio or Bondi or RFKJr.

Good point, but the alternate of Cruz would be for states that do not allow Trump on the ballot.

17

But in your scenario the president is still being elected, just by the House instead of the Electoral College.

18

Exactly. It all hinges on SCOTUS agreeing with Trump that as far as the 22nd Amendment is concerned, “elected” really means elected by the Electoral College.

19

Which he wouldn’t, because the Presidential Succession Act stipulates that anyone ineligible to be elected president gets skipped in the line of succession.

20

Please point out exactly where in 3 USC 19(e) it uses the word “elected”.

it doesn’t

And this attorney agrees with me that “elected” and “eligible” are not synonyms.