I appreciate Stoermer’s point that pessimism isn’t the same as despair of giving up.
I think it is way more than a possibility.
But I also think that power is addictive. If staying in office as head of government is at all possible, given the power structure of your country, the great majority of presidents will do it. And the Trump administration is hard at work changing the power structure, both by battering away at norms, and by putting friendly faces in top military slots If I read about this in another presidential republic, I’d suspect someone is angling for president for life:
Hegseth’s top military aide tapped for No. 2 Army officer post
Could it be that the generals Hegseth promotes aren’t actually on board with taking illegal orders? Yes, it could be. A lot of coup attempts fail. And a lot succeed. Trump is telling me that he’s the kind of guy that will go for it if he thinks it might work.
Something I think we haven’t explicitly discussed as to why Trump will demand continued power is his understanding of how it works: to punish one’s enemies.
Trump considers himself persecuted after he left power (the reality of the matter, well, is obvious), but I’m 100% certain that he believes if he left power, even to a “loyal” subordinate, that his enemies would use the chance to attack him. And he always sees it as an attack, not following the law, following justice, or expected consequences.
He will not allow himself to be in the position of the attacked, not the attacker again. And that means retaining power. Sure, he loves the attention, the power to punish anyone who crosses him, but the absolute immunity to the attacks of those who he steps on (and expects to do the same to him no matter what) is the drug that’ll keep him clinging to power long past any actual enjoyment of it.
OK, yes, but I think that if a president can do it consistent with the system in place, he probably will find such enemies. It’s not something special to Trump.
Here’s where we could easily be headed:
President Biya is 92.
It’s a common trait of would-be autocrats and fascists. I don’t pretend Trump is somehow substantially different from the rest of the type. Just that attempts to predict what Trump will or will not do despite any laws, traditions, or other so-called guardrails should be informed by what he wants, and what he fears.
Since a 3rd term gives him what he wants (money, power, the ability to bully without resistance) and protects him from what he fears (the lost of any of the above)… it’s all but 100% that he’ll pursue a third term by means fair and foul.
Agreed, except it is by default ‘foul’. Not that this would bother Trump in any way; his ’fair’ is ripping off contractors and cheating business partner.
Stranger,
I do, however, think there are a number of swing states that won’t blindly allow Trump on the ballot. Sure, Montana will be happy to put Trump on there and while they’re at it, ban all other candidates. But I’m not so sure about MI, MN, WI, PA, NV, AZ, etc.
Since states run elections you only need a few swing states to stand up for what’s right.
Colorado tried that. Didn’t work out. SCOTUS decision tl;dr version: an individual state cannot prevent someone from running in a nationwide election.
But as I understand it, that was based on their interpretation that he’d taken part in an insurrection (J6), and on Colorado law/constitution, which is different than a direct conflict with the 22A of the US constitution. And there is some validity to that, since Congress failed to convict. If states can convict to keep someone off the ballot that’s going to be a mess.
If SCOTUS is really going to throw the 22A out the window, then the US is functionally ended in its present form.
At this point, SCOTUS will throw anything out, if that’s what it takes to help Trump.
As for what Trump will do:
Trump ‘would love’ unconstitutional third term but rules out running for VP
On the basis of “Trump lies about everything”, he is now absolutely going to run as VP in 2028, and SCOTUS will find just enough leeway in the Constitution to allow this.
The Atlantic has a similar take: Trump means it.
“The president sees the Constitution as an obstacle to be surmounted, not a repository of values that he must respect.”
That pretty much sums up his entire approach to governance. That and how much money he can make.
Honestly, I think SCOTUS would let him run for President directly; the Trumpist argument is that the 22nd Amendment meant two CONSECUTIVE terms (thereby ruling out Barack Obama challenging him.) If Trump makes that argument, they’ll accept it. It’s stupid, of course, but Republicans don’t care.
Sounds like those pesky elections are the real obstacle…
As written, yes. Trump was never convicted of insurrection either by Federal Law or the Senate upon impeachment and I agree with that assessment. The worrisome bit is it did leave open the legal theory that a state cannot restrict anyone due to constitutional ineligibility (as the Constitution is a Federal document) and that it would have to be the Feds who, as we all know, have no mechanism in place to do so.
He would have to still be alive to serve a 3rd term in the first place, and I don’t think he will be.
But then again, I really didn’t think he’d survive his first term either.
There’s no way that Trumpist argument could hold any water. “No person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice.” Not “more than two consecutive terms, but okay if separate.”
Chane “could” to “should” and I’ll agree with you.
Y’know for some reason I seemed to be working with a different actuarial table in my head vs. others in the Board, at least for that first term and the Biden interregnum.
Some of us have been speculating the possibility of somebody serving two terms as President and then being elected VP for years - for example, here’s one from 2011 that mentioned the possibility of Obama doing this in 2016 if he was re-elected in 2012.
Donald likes to look to Vlad Putin as a guide, and Putin did something like this. The Russian Constitution used to limit the number of terms a President could serve, so to get around this Putin become Prime Minister from 2008-2012 while a stooge (Dmitry Medvedev) served as titular President. Then when Vlad got back in as President, he had the Constitution changed so that he’d never have to be bothered with doing that ‘switch job titles’ maneuver again.
Technically that would NOT work with the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the USA, since constitutionally (ha!) no one can be elected VP who is not eligible to be President. Meaning Donald could not be elected VP no matter who he got to be his “President” stooge.
So we’re back to ‘the Supreme Court decides that the 22nd Amendment actually means “consecutive terms” and so DJT IS eligible.’ In which case, there’s no need to bother with the VP/P switch trick.
.
.
.
…I don’t think this will be an issue as I don’t think Donald will be ambulatory when the 2028 primaries happen. But as many have said, he’s looked unhealthy for years, and anything is possible.