Yes, the Twenty-second Amendment would seem to be as ironclad as any provision of American law can be. But since when has that ever stopped lawyers? Is there anything anyone could propose that would at least require the formality of a court ruling against it?
I made a proposal here that depends on the definition of “elected”. Basically it is to engineer the election so it goes to the House so Trump is not elected by the Electoral College, but by the state House delegations.
You’d want to court to rule that Trump isn’t ineligible for VP under the 12th Amendment based on the 22nd Amendment.Once the court allows that, Trump becomes VP and then President because the 22nd Amendment only applies to people being elected.
Something like that.
The only non-nutty way I can think of is, “It’s wrong but we dare you to say it’s wrong.” Basically, run Trump as a candidate again in 2028, but run such an intense intimidation and threat campaign against the actual state/local officials who’d exclude Trump from the ballot, that they would decide to leave Trump on the ballot and say “We’ll let SCOTUS decide instead of us board officials.”
I can’t imagine anyone wanting to run for president and WIN just to immediately step aside for an 83-year-old dementia patient.
I can see this going one of two ways: the new President is not interesting in serving or having power, just wants to service his godfather-figure, and so meekly follows orders (and collects a big payoff, not from Trump but from people he can trust); or the new President uses their power on the first day to force a resignation or get a medical disqualification for the dementia patient. The trouble with the second one is that it would cause such an uproar that who knows what would happen next. In the first case, I would expect the new ex-President to meet with a fatal accident within a not-too-obvious but short period of time.
Yes, this is the fundamental flaw. Plus, who would Trump enough for such a vital role? Don Jr? I wouldn’t.
Trump: “So now you’re gonna resign so I can be president again, right?”
Junior: “About that… remember the time you punched me in the face because I didn’t wear a suit to a baseball game?”
Trump: “I like hamberders.”
Junior: “Guards! Throw this man in the dungeon.”
“It’s not for the courts to decide who is and isn’t eligible for the Presidency. It’s up to the voters to determine that.”
Which probably is not a true statement viz. the 22nd does not add requirements to being eligible to hold office. But ignoring that
anybody else. Impeachment might be on the table but ain’t no way The Insurrectionist or anyone else will get 2/3 of the Senate to convict for the sole purpose of making the VP the President.
Declare a state of emergency and cancel the election. Nutty? Not really, especially with this supine SCOTUS.
This is what I am thinking as well. Can’t lose the election if you don’t bother holding it in the first place. And clearly the people have spoken and already decided that Trump would win anyway. He’s already said that one and he likes the sound of it.
There’s the obvious way. A twentieth-eight amendment could be proposed and ratified that overturns the twenty-second amendment.
“Because we say so, we have the power to do it, and no one can stop us” isn’t inherently nutty. It’s awful and anti-democratic and will destroy whatever is left of what used to make the US a decent country, but it’s not inherently nutty. Plenty of other governments around the world have gone that way.
Whereas I can’t imagine Trump not occupying a jail cell this very minute.
Doing so would require the approval of 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, followed by the approval of 3/4 of the states. It’s a steep road to achieve, and I don’t think Trump or MAGA have enough support to even come close to that.
Problem with that is the federal government doesn’t hold elections that can be canceled. States do. Trump could declare “I am hereby declaring all elections TERMINATED! Thank you for your attention to this matter” and the response from all 50 secretaries of state would be “State law and the Constitution say we have to have an election, so we’re having one”.
Congress has the power to change when election day occurs, and they could in theory postpone it until an indefinite future date, but there’s zero chance of that getting 60 votes in the Senate, nor can they change the fact that Trump’s term ends on 1/20/2029 whether a successor has been elected or not. From a practical standpoint the end result would probably be President Hakeem Jeffries.
I imagine the only elections taking place on the federal level would be, like, the National Archives softball team choosing their captain.
The answer is no. There is no non-nutty way for Trump to run. Illegal and/or violent ways, yes. But nothing real for 2028.
Besides, he ain’t living that long.
This is a little like what Senator Charles Sumner said about the post-Civil War constitutional amendments. His unpopular view was that laws have more force than the Constitution.
One advantage of laws is that they contain details on how they will be implemented and on punishments for violations.
One problem with the 22nd amendment is that it doesn’t stop Trump from being on the ballot – it just stops him from being elected. But if he got 270 electoral votes in November 2028, it is hard to see the Secret Service or military ejecting him from the White House, or, more importantly, failing to recognize him as commander in chief.
A related question is whether there is a non-nutty way for Republicans other than Trump to organize a presidential run when their party’s leader goes back and forth on whether he will run for a third term. Today is a forth day, as can be seen by those willing to click on a @realDonaldTrump Truth Social link: