Originally posted by: Edso
Sorry, Kevn, Nope. Go read the 12th Amendment. See the bolded last sentence.
So now explain to me how Trump can be the President for a third time, since, once he is ineligble for the office of President after having served two terms (22nd Amendment), he is also no longer eligible for VP.
Amendment XII (1804) The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President—The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Sure. But what would make someone "constitutionally ineligible," per this Amendment? It wouldn't have been term limits--those didn't come into play until the 22nd Amendment was ratified. Therefore, the 12th Amendment refers to other disqualifications, such as not having been born in the United States.
What you're missing is that the 22nd Amendment does NOT, repeat, does NOT, prevent a given person from serving a third term--it just prevents him from being ELECTED a third time. THAT IS ALL IT SAYS. Being a VP and ascending to the office of President (for a personal third term) is not expressly excluded. (Also remember--people don't vote for VP candidates, so you couldn't say that such a VP was elected.)
AND...since you were kind enough to include the entire text of the 12th Amendment, note that the House can choose a President in the event that the Electoral College doesn't provide a clear winner (or, that the House doesn't ratify the decision, a la Trumpers). So, THAT would be an additional way in which a person could get a third term without having been elected more than twice. Keep in mind that the person the House chooses doesn't even have to be one of the two existing candidates!
Believe me, I've researched this extensively, and there's a LOT of debate about this, with good arguments on both sides. So if it ever came down to this, who would be the ultimate decider?
The Supreme Court. Game over.
Now, part of the argument is whether the 22nd Amendment should be interpreted broadly (as you are doing) or narrowly (as I'm doing). But the general trend has been toward narrow interpretations, and that approach was in fact used to justify the overturning of Roe v. Wade, as in one of the evil scum justice's opinions (I forget which one; they're all the same to me). So I would expect the prohibition in the 22nd Amendment to be interpreted as only applying to that one situation cited, especially if doing so would allow Trump to slide unelected into a third term.
I KNOW you think I'm making all this up, but it's not my opinion. In fact, I thought the same things you did until I looked it all up. The danger is real, and I blame it on those who drafted the 22nd Amendment being focused on never having another FDR rather than addressing the broader implications.
