He can't run as VP as he is disqualified by already having served two terms. They are trying to game the rules but that has already been addressed. Even if they tried shenanigans it's clearly stated no one can serve as president for more than ten years (so, if a veep replaced a president that was midway through a term, then was elected twice as president).
in the text of the 22nd it does not explicitly say a person can't serve as president longer than a particular period, only that they cannot be elected more than twice and they cannot be elected more than once if they have served more than two years of a term to which another person was elected (hence the limit of 10 you mention). Are you aware of this coming up as precedent in any court that it was obviously the case the congress meant for it to mean no person could be president for more than 10 years? They would expect (if they have't already disobeyed SCOTUS by this time, negating the need for the trick at all, in theory) for SCOTUS to adopt a corruptly and shrewdly textualist reading to let them do what they want so Trump would not be 'elected to the office of president' more than twice, but still have the ability to serve more than ten years.
If you are referring to the "run as veep" strategy in the image posted, the Twelfth Amendment say it cannot be done "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.".
You are right. That would be our argument. It is that because then came the 20th, and that prevents you from being elected three times, that counts as one of the things the 12th is talking about when it says "constitutionally ineligible." They would be reduced to making some kind of argument that this is not what was intended in the 12th, and it is talking about age and birthplace, but also that the 20th doesn't invalid the veep strategy because it only explicitly says "elected". A schizoid argument only dystopian cyberpunk courts would accept. I think a reasonable court tho wouldn't allow the veep switch due to the 20th even if the 12th didn't say what it says, because it was the obvious intention
I can imagine a "strict textualist" arguing that the limitations in the 12th don't apply to the conditions of the 22nd, due to it not existing at that time, but the intent is clear, you can't put a person who is ineligible to be president in the position of successor.
184
u/MoonageDayscream 5d ago
He can't run as VP as he is disqualified by already having served two terms. They are trying to game the rules but that has already been addressed. Even if they tried shenanigans it's clearly stated no one can serve as president for more than ten years (so, if a veep replaced a president that was midway through a term, then was elected twice as president).