None of this would prevent people from writing in his name, even if he’s already deceased.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
I hope he is and I hope people write his name in. I think there’s a reasonable chance he doesn’t survive the full term. He’s grossly overweight, has bad dietary habits, and little exercise since he doesn’t walk golf courses. The only thing that is in his favor is that he doesn’t smoke.
Like FDR.
Okay, I’ll ask: what text in the Constitution says that someone who was Constitutionally eligible to be President, as opposed to “eligible to be elected President,” in both 2017 and 2025 would suddenly not be Constitutionally eligible to be President in 2029?
There’s the old (wrong) saying that every cell in your body gets replaced every 7 years. So the person standing in 2028 clearly isn’t the same person that got elected in 2016 and 2024.
I’m not sure if that’s a joke or an actual argument SCOTUS might try.
Trump will not be eligible to be President again. And… no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
The Constitution states what the requirements for presidential eligibility are. Trump is no longer eligible after the end of his second term, full stop. Eligibility doesn’t grow back like a lizard shedding its tail. There’s no mechanism by which he can cease to have been elected twice.
If the America-hating fuckstick even mentions running for a third term, can we please get President Obama up and warming in the bullpen right then?
Remember, the presidential candidate is not actually on the ballot. Their electors are.
*mumble*mumble* birth certificate *mumble*
Stranger
The Constitution protects but does not bind DJT. The Constitution binds but does not protect Mr. Obama.
I agree with you. The counter argument (which I don’t find persuasive) is that the Constitution only prohibits him being elected to the position, and if he takes office by other means, (Speaker of the House and both the President and VP die or resign, for example) he’s perfectly eligible to serve. While that’s a very literal reading of the amendment, I don’t think it’s what was intended. Luckily, it won’t matter. He won’t get into office through a really weird series of appointments and resignations. If he stays in office, it will instead because of a “national emergency” that somehow requires he stay “for two weeks while we figure this thing out”
The Presidential Succession Act stipulates that if a person in succession is not eligible for the presidency then they get skipped over. Madeline Albright wasn’t part of succession despite being Secretary of State because she wasn’t a natural-born citizen - ditto for Alejandro Mayorkas as Biden’s HS Sec. Being elected Speaker wouldn’t make Trump eligible to be president again.
Once again, as long as we have a series of wickets labeled “ineligible to be president” and “ineligible to be elected president”, it will be possible to bob and weave between them.
I’ve read through this entire thread, and could have easily missed it but: IS THERE such a wicket as “ineligible to be elected president”?
I’m not sure that short of a soft coup (or worse) that a candidate can just “thesaurus” their way into eligibility for the Presidency: “Oh sure, I’m not eligible to BE President … but surely I can be ELECTED President! Heh? Heh? No? OK then … but surely I can SERVE as President? Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
Unless the US political system starts working really differently really suddenly (coup or more), then it’s a unmovable hammerlock that Trump will not be president past January 20, 2029. Attempting to poke holes in Constitutional text isn’t going to cut it if a shred of the pre-2017 rule of law survives.
If one’s point is “Ah, but the rule of law is already gone!”, then just say that,
Trump is eligible to be president – he’s over 35 and a natural born citizen. The amendment says that no one can be elected president more than twice (or something to that effect). You have it backwards – he is eligible, but cannot be elected.
Whether that holds any kind of legal water, I have no idea. Given that four Justices just tried to stop a state court from sentencing him, who knows what they would find if this ever came up.
Anyway, that’s the back and forth. I with the writers of that amendment had been more clear – after two terms, no longer eligible or cannot serve for more than X years or whatever.
what bothers me is that apparently an earlier draft of the amendment did say it clearly, but it somehow got changed between the House and Senate conciliation. A court could decide that is significant, and an indication the drafters really meant only “ineligible to be elected.” However, it makes no sense. The goal was to limit the presidency to two terms. I doubt anyone thought “two terms unless you get in some strange way, then three or more is fine.”
Well, it may just be up to Coney Barrett or Roberts.
I see now. I wasn’t hip to the fine points being debated, despite reading this thread. This link lays it out plainly (scroll down to “Interaction with the Twenty-second Amendment”):
The world kind of falls apart if Procrustus’ take isn’t a slam-dunk 9-0 decision before the Supreme Court. The event that Trump is granted the right to run for vice-president in 2028 would count for me as a soft coup. Let’s hope there’s one last gnarled piece of guardrail that keeps that ultimately prevents that outcome.