How will SCOTUS rule against the 22nd Amendment

[edhopper]

to give Trump a third term? What legal contortions will they go through to allow it?
Will they cite the Divine Rights of Kings?

[themaguffin]

1. They would say that it was original intent... of King George

[Mr.Bee]

2. Where There Is A Will There's a Way

Stranger things have happened.
I'm sure he and Roberts are already working on it.

[unblock]

3. They can get around it, it's not hard if they control the house.

The 22nd says he can't be *elected* president after two full terms, but he can *serve* as president if he gets there by succession.

So they run a placeholder party ticket, Donnie tells republicans, vote for them, you get me. If republicans win the White House and the house, then the house elects Donnie speaker of the house (the speaker doesn't have to be a member of Congress) and then the placeholder president and vice president both resign immediately after being sworn in.

Voila, Donnie third term.

[Buckeyeblue]

9. Agreed that this scenario isn't really called out

It's the Ford scenario. Appointed VP. Then succeed to President. But Republicans have to control congress.

He'll be pretty old at that point. But in this current world I've learned to never say never.

[unblock]

13. They will weekend at Bernie's him until they can't get away with it

Besides "old" is only a problem for democrats, just like deficits.

[Shrek]

18. They don't even need to make him Speaker

The VP in your placeholder ticket just needs to resign. The President nominates Trump as VP, and after he's confirmed the President resigns. Trump ascends to the Presidency.

Since there's no election the 22nd amendment isn't implicated in any way.

[unblock]

19. That works, but requires a majority in both houses to confirm a new vp

Whereas the speaker route only requires a majority in the house.

Another possibility is the medvedev route -- just allow a puppet to become president, one willing to do whatever Donnie wants. Donnie could nominally have an official cabinet post or just be an advisor or not even that. If the puppet president does whatever he wants, what does it matter.

[bcbink]

28. Agree

It's a cult. Can we prepare and block this as a possibility?

[unblock]

30. A majority in the house would be a good start

Though frankly we need the trifecta to really accomplish anything....

[Blues Heron]

4. They will say he has a 1st amendment right to run, and it should be up to the voters who they want.

[bluestarone]

5. THIS court will 100% allow him to

run a third term. (if he's still breathing)

[CTyankee]

14. What will be the Court's basis for such a decision?

tell me how they get around a Constitution that says otherwise (with an amendment to it that specifically allows it)?

[bluestarone]

15. Anymore they do not need a basis for their decisions, BUT

I really believe they will use the argument of consecutive terms. All they need is a little word argument, and guess what, there word is FINAL. They will say constitution states 2 consecutive terms, so here we go. Hope i'm wrong, but remember immunity?

[sboatcar]

6. You don't think he'll actually live long enough to seek a third term, do you?

Because I don't think he's got anywhere near that much time left.

[BannonsLiver]

10. I don't think he'll be physically able to run again by then.

I also think it will be apparent that he is more unpopular than late stage W Bush was by that time with the coming economic collapse.

[NYC Liberal]

31. That's one silver lining.

Can you imagine if he was Vance’s age and in good health?

The other silver lining is that his ego and narcissism will never allow the Republicans to groom a successor. When he dies, MAGA will split apart with infighting.

[eShirl]

7. They will rule the U.S. Constitution in its entirety to be unconstitutional.

[nycbos]

8. Bold of you to assume the lap dogs in Trump's cabinet would ever

… do anything in the best interest of the nation.

[edhopper]

17. How so?

The 22nd is term limits, I think you are thinking of the 25th.

[nycbos]

24. Brain fart on my part

[EarthFirst]

11. He will be lucky to serve his third year of this current term...

…he’s not well mentally or physically.

Both will be his demise sooner rather than later.

Good riddance.

[C_U_L8R]

12. They'll contort themselves into quite a knot

…to let Trump have a third term but not Obama.

[Rafi]

16. Great. We'll run Obama against him...landslide.

That would really piss the clown off.

[BlueTsunami2018]

22. Why would you assume Obama wants the job again?

I’m sure he’s suffered enough with the bullshit and death threats. I doubt he’d want to even if he could.

[lame54]

20. Worse...

They'll word it so Obama can't run

[DFW]

21. They'll just get some stooge to sue against it

Then declare it unconstitutional when it comes up before them, claim the ratification was made on faulty constitutional grounds, and repeal it. *poof* done deal.

Look how easy it was with Roe v. Wade. Presto Change-O and we're back to coat hangers. The Pope may be dismantling Opus Dei, but that doesn't mean Alito, Thomas and Roberts have to listen to him.

[maxsolomon]

23. They'll simply rule it unconstitutional!

Problem solved.

[Ms. Toad]

27. Literally not possible.

Any part of the constitution is, by definition, constitutional.

[WarGamer]

25. Can't rule against the Actuary Table...

He's not running for a third term, folks.

[Ms. Toad]

26. It is literally impossible for SCOTUS to rule against the 22nd amendment - or to declare it unconstitutional

as someone suggested below.

Your question is premised on a misunderstanding that the 22nd amendment means (and can only mean) one thing. Unfortunately, anything written with words is subject to multiple interpretations, including the constitution. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the constitution. When parties differ at to what the constitution means, the Supreme Court is the decider.

While I can't imagine the Supreme Court deciding the 22nd amendment can be interpreted to permit Trump a third term, even if it does interpret it that way, it isn't going against the 22nd amendment or ruling it unconstitutional. It is declaring how the words which make up the 22nd amendment are to be interpreted.

(They can rule against laws (both state and federal), since laws rank below the constitution - and lawmakers can make laws that conflict with the constitution, either because they are stubborn and don't like what the constitution says - or because they are misinterpreting it. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it wins over any law which conflicts with it.)

[Greg_In_SF]

29. They

won't.

[UTUSN]

32. They'll say it applies only to FDR and Democrats of that strain.