this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
259 points (97.4% liked)

politics

22568 readers
4202 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Plans for a potential Trump third term are already being discussed, despite constitutional limitations.

Trump's former strategist Steve Bannon has suggested they're "working on it," while Trump himself has made several hints about running again after 2028.

Some Republicans, like Congressman Andy Ogles, have proposed amending the 22nd Amendment to allow three terms.

Constitutional law professor Michele Goodwin warns that Trump's administration has already shown "a display of lawlessness" with controversial executive orders and policies, while critics note Democratic opposition has been largely absent, allowing these discussions to gain traction.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival 6 points 3 days ago (14 children)

Without a constitutional amendment, it's not going to happen. Even the secret service will intervene, following the orders of the legitimate president over Trump.

Even if there is no election, the 25th amendment continues to operate, and there is still a valid line of succession. Trump's and Vance's terms end in January, 2029. Trump is out.

Without an election, all House seats would be vacant, so there would be no Speaker. The line then goes to the President pro tempore of the Senate. Since only 1/3 of Senate terms expire in any election year, there is still a functioning Senate. It can select a "President pro tempore of the Senate", who is 4th in line for the Presidency.

If there is an Electoral College, its votes cannot be certified by a non-existent House of Representatives, which means a president cannot be selected. However, the Senate certifies the EC votes for the Vice President, and/or selects the Vice President if the votes cannot be certified for some reason.

With either the senate-selected Vice President, or the senate-selected President pro tempore of the Senate, there will be a non-Trump president in the White House in January, 2029.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'm assuming he will just run as VP with Vance or one of his sons as President, but still functionally serve the same role.

[–] Rivalarrival 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Can't. You have to be qualified to run for president in order to run as VP. He isn't eligible to run again.

You can serve out less than two years of another president's term, and still be eligible to be elected to two terms of your own. For example, Harris could have replaced Biden two years into his term, in which case she probably would have won in 2024, and remained eligible to run in 2028. You can be president up to (but not including) 10 years.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

The wording is specifically that you need to be qualified to hold the office of the president, not to run for the office.

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

With qualifications to hold the office being:

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.

So the phrasing of the 22nd created an issue:

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

Elsewhere it talks about eligibility to hold office, but the 22nd only refers to election.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-22/overview-of-twenty-second-amendment-presidential-term-limits

There's also a similar issue with the speaker of the house, where eligibility isn't as clearly defined as one might expect.

While the intent of the law was clearly to codify the previous pattern of capping it at two terms (and being spiteful to FDR) it's phrased with enough ambiguity that it's clear how they'll argue it.

load more comments (11 replies)