This is where the potential loophole exists because it requires a scenario the Founders didn’t envision.
The 12th Amendment states no one can stand for VP who is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Presidency.
The 22nd Amendment states no one can be elected President more than twice, or more than once if he served (past tense) more than half the term of someone else that was President.
But it (potentially) leave an open question the eligibility status of someone that has served two terms because of the past tense nature of the sentence where it limits a person to being elected only once if he served more the half of the term of someone else elected President. Does this limitation work forwards in time as well?
The “spirit” of the 22nd Amendment is to limit a President to no more than 10 years as President.
The letter of the two amendments, however, leaves it very much open as to whether Trump could ascend to the Presidency again in a matter other than election.
Remember, there are four ways someone can become President. Election is only one of them, and our legal language actually distinguishes between all of them.
A person can be elected
A person can be chosen by the House of Representatives because no candidate got a majority of the electoral votes (this happened in 1800 and 1824, and in 1836 in the Senate for VP). Oh and BTW, the legal language calls this chosen, not elected, so it is distinct from being elected. Although I have also heard the phrase “contingent election” used to describe it.
A person can ascend to the Presidency upon the death, resignation or impeachment and conviction of the President
A person can be acting President if the current President is incapacitated (some people might say 3 and 4 are the same. I believe legally they are different).
So this is more than mere trolling. Legal folks working for Trump have been looking into this.
Personally I think the courts all the way up to SCOTUS would rule against this loophole.
Nothing to worry about. He isn’t the first president to wish that. Reagan mentioned it in an interview in the
Mid 80s during his second term. Bush and Clinton both talked about it during their time too.
I don’t see the difference. It’s a constitutional restriction so it’s out of his hands. And I don’t think he’s Charles De Gaulle. He doesn’t have testicles that big.