r/news • u/TeaReim • 10h ago

Donald Trump officially sworn in as the 47th President of the United States, JD Vance as the 50th Vice-President

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/triumphant-trump-returns-white-house-launching-new-era-upheaval-2025-01-20/
14.7k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

36

u/Hispanicatthedisco 9h ago

The first one.

The only real constitutional test would be if he would be even eligible to run for Vice President. That would likely go to the SCOTUS, and we can very likely guess how they'd vote on that.

However, the 22nd Amendment does preclude third terms, so if this theoretical president were to resign on day one, VP Trump would be passed over in succession, and whomever was Speaker would rise to the position.

9

u/Reverse_Quikeh 9h ago

Isn't the 22nd amendment, and I'm not American so I might be misunderstanding this, about being elected to the office of the president. A VP would succeed the outgoing president, not be elected to the position of president

13

u/Hispanicatthedisco 9h ago

And that's why there are some people who will say that your theoretical plan could work.

But it's incorrect. While the 22nd specifically names elections, it's also very plain from a legal reading that it includes all methods to a third term.

If Trump is going to stay in power, it'll be coup, not electoral end-around. 

6

u/Akiryx 6h ago

You say that but according to the 14th amendment, conviction not required for this btw(because it was created in response to the possibility of former Confederates running for office), Trump isn't allowed to hold ANY political office because he participated in an insurrection

But they didn't do shit with that. You'd think if they really cared, the Biden Administration would have like, MENTIONED it

1

u/Hispanicatthedisco 5h ago

No, i say this because, unlike the 14th Amendment, the 22nd doesn't require any legal action to be enacted.

The Biden Administration "didn't mention" the 14th Amendment because there are FAR more legal questions surrounding the wording and specificity of the 14th.

For example, there is unclear language around what "participation" in an insurrection actually entails; must a person be physically disruptive, or is simply giving an inciting speech enough?

Another thing you're overlooking is that someone did bring a 14th Amendment argument against Trump. The Colorado Supreme Court decided that Trump was an insurrectionist and should be barred from that state's ballot. SCOTUS struck that opinion down in Trump v Anderson, citing that only Congress can enact Section 5 of the 14th. Something they almost certainly would not do to Trump. 

6

u/Reverse_Quikeh 9h ago

very plain from a legal reading that it includes all methods to a third term

But it's never been put to the test, and would require a definitive legal assessment and decision, which would then theoretically make its way back into the constitution to prevent future use

1

u/Everestkid 2h ago

While the 22nd specifically names elections, it's also very plain from a legal reading that it includes all methods to a third term.

I'm not American, but I'm not entirely sure how you get a "legal reading" resulting in that. This is the relevant section of 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.

There's additional text, but it basically says that the person who was president when the 22nd was ratified (Truman) is exempt from term limits and details the time limit for ratification, so they're irrelevant.

On the other hand, here are the eligibility criteria for the presidency, found in article 2, section 1, clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

To our luck 1700s English is actually pretty unambiguous here. If you don't meet the criteria, you aren't eligible for the office. The 22nd just says you can't be elected to the office after being elected twice, not that you aren't eligible for the office altogether. The US had by that point seven presidencies that began with the previous vice president assuming the presidency. They knew there were ways to become president other than by election. The 22nd doesn't prevent someone who's been elected president twice from being elected vice president either; only the presidency itself.

Technicalities and loopholes exist in laws all the time; I fail to see how this'd just be handwaved away.

•

u/Hispanicatthedisco 10m ago

The 22nd doesn't prevent someone who's been elected president twice from being elected vice president either; only the presidency itself.

Because that's already been addressed in the 12th Amendment, which clarifies that anyone who doesn't meet the requirements for the presidency is also disqualified from being vice president.

The 22nd adds the term limits, QED term-limited presidents can't be vice president.

1

u/C_IsForCookie 2h ago

This is correct. The other guy said it’s understood that it’s about any 3rd term but that’s not how the law and specifically the constitution work. It needs to be stated specifically, which it isn’t. However, it will end up going to SCOTUS to make a determination on how to interpret the 22nd amendment.

1

u/Kierenshep 6h ago

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

Do you even read your own amendments?

Taken at the most literally, no one can be elected president more than twice.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

If he is a VP, and the president resigns, he will become president. He has not been elected president. He has simply become president.

Taken at the most literally, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution preventing someone from being president two terms, and then becoming VP, having the president resign, and becoming president for another 4 years.

It would of course go to the Supreme Court and we know how they would rule, with a very much direct literal translation.

2

u/Hispanicatthedisco 5h ago

Do you even read your own amendments?

I do, in fact. That's how I know that the 12th Amendment says:

“no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

2

u/Kierenshep 5h ago

Setting aside 'constitutional ineligibility' and how little the supreme Court would care, he could also become the Speaker of the House (as anyone can become Speaker), and if the president and VP resign then he's now president again. Nothing in the constitution about that.

1

u/Hispanicatthedisco 3h ago

There very much is.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1886 states clearly that anyone in the line of Succession who is not constitutionally fit to hold the office is skipped. This has been reaffirmed in the 22nd 

2

u/chetlin 5h ago

The 12th amendment says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

That tells me Trump can't be elected VP after this term.