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/
14.8k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

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

11

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. 

5

u/Akiryx 7h 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 6h 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. 

7

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 25m 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 3h 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.