- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Talk about Bannon stating blankly that Trump will serve a 3rd term.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:02 pm to NashvilleTider
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:02 pm to NashvilleTider
quote:
My nephew works in the administration and the plan is for Trump to run again. Maybe with Rubio as the running mate -
Vance is on the outs with Suzy.
You don't know shite.
1
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:09 pm to Indefatigable
The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits a president to two terms, whether consecutive or non-consecutive, stating: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” However, this restriction applies specifically to the office of the president and does not explicitly prohibit a former two-term president from running for or serving as vice president.
Yes he can. He wouldn’t have been elected more than twice to the office of President. He would’ve been elected twice and then would be appointed President if or when the elected president were to step down.
Yes he can. He wouldn’t have been elected more than twice to the office of President. He would’ve been elected twice and then would be appointed President if or when the elected president were to step down.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:10 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
VPOTUS has the same eligibility requirements as POTUS
No it very specifically does not.
If courts were to interpret the 22nd Amendment as rendering a two-term president ineligible to serve as president again, it could complicate their eligibility for vice president but it would come down to a court decision.
This question remains unresolved because no former two-term president has run for vice president since the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951 so the courts haven’t ruled on it.
This post was edited on 10/23/25 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:11 pm to tide06
quote:
However, this restriction applies specifically to the office of the president and does not explicitly prohibit a former two-term president from running for or serving as vice president. Yes he can. He wouldn’t have been elected more than twice to the office of President. He would’ve been elected twice and then would be appointed President if or when the elected president were to step down.
Only if you are so stupid that you failed to read the 12th Amendment.
quote:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
This post was edited on 10/23/25 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:12 pm to 3down10
Constitutional scholar and former Harvard professor Laurence Tribe has warned people against assuming that the 22nd Amendment—and the 12th, which outlines how the president and vice president are elected—completely protects against a third term.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:13 pm to Indefatigable
The 12th Amendment governs the election of the president and vice president, and it requires that the vice president meet the same eligibility criteria as the president, as outlined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident within the United States for at least 14 years. A former two-term president meets these criteria and is not barred by the 22nd Amendment from running for vice president.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:15 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Constitutional scholar and former Harvard professor Laurence Tribe has warned people against assuming that the 22nd Amendment—and the 12th, which outlines how the president and vice president are elected—completely protects against a third term.
Exactly.
Not only is it possible it’s probably he would be allowed to follow this path but again as the courts haven’t ruled no one can say for sure how it would land.
But pretending that it’s settled law is laughable.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:16 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Constitutional scholar and former Harvard professor Laurence Tribe has warned people against assuming that the 22nd Amendment—and the 12th, which outlines how the president and vice president are elected—completely protects against a third term.
Because it doesn’t completely prevent it. It just prevents it in the way that retards here suggest it. No, he cannot run for or under any circumstance serve as VPOTUS.
He technically could maneuver himself to be Speaker. But any circumstance that would lead to him ascending back into the Oval Office from that position isn’t real life or a serious hypothetical.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:17 pm to FLTech
quote:
In my option, he is entitled to at least getting those 2 years back
you are an excellent troll.. highly highly committed.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:19 pm to tide06
quote:
The 12th Amendment governs the election of the president and vice president, and it requires that the vice president meet the same eligibility criteria as the president, as outlined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident within the United States for at least 14 years. A former two-term president meets these criteria and is not barred by the 22nd Amendment from running for vice president.
The 22nd amendment is part of the constitution. It creates a restriction on being POTUS if one were elected to that office twice. The 12th amendment is very clear. Anyone who was elected twice as potus is not eligible to be VPOTUS.
It’s also just common sense. It the plain text interpretation that I described wasn’t how it was meant, the clauses involved would have no meaning or practical effect. Basic tenets of legal interpretation rejects nonsense theories that render black letter law meaningless.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:20 pm to Indefatigable
Sorry bro but you are wrong.
Trump is eligible for vp.
I don’t think Trump should do it. I would be fine with Vance as President.
Trump is eligible for vp.
I don’t think Trump should do it. I would be fine with Vance as President.
This post was edited on 10/23/25 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:22 pm to Indefatigable
You’re just not correct on this.
Maybe it’s because you don’t want him to do it.
Maybe it’s because you are assuming it’s settled when it’s not.
But it’s agreed to by many far more knowledgeable than me that it’s entirely possible that the VP -> appointment path could work because he wouldn’t explicitly be violating any existing laws because he wouldn’t have been elected three times.
It is what it is.
Maybe it’s because you don’t want him to do it.
Maybe it’s because you are assuming it’s settled when it’s not.
But it’s agreed to by many far more knowledgeable than me that it’s entirely possible that the VP -> appointment path could work because he wouldn’t explicitly be violating any existing laws because he wouldn’t have been elected three times.
It is what it is.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:22 pm to tide06
quote:
No it very specifically does not.
It literally does. And I mean literally, literally.
quote:
If courts were to interpret the 22nd Amendment as rendering a two-term president ineligible to serve as president again, it could complicate their eligibility for vice president but it would come down to a court decision.
Sure, it would require a decision if some idiot challenged it, but that’s only because it’s never come up. It’s completely plain when reading the 12th and 22nd amendments together.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:22 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Constitutional scholar and former Harvard professor Laurence Tribe has warned people against assuming that the 22nd Amendment—and the 12th, which outlines how the president and vice president are elected—completely protects against a third term.
Barrack Obama was a constitutional scholar too.
Doesn't mean shite.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:23 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Sorry bro but you are wrong. Trump is eligible for vp.
On this point, no, I am not. No blue check who told you so is correct. The 12th and 22nd amendments plainly prevent it.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:24 pm to Odysseus32
They stole his first and second terms, so I’m cool with it.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:24 pm to tide06
quote:
You’re just not correct on this. Maybe it’s because you don’t want him to do it. Maybe it’s because you are assuming it’s settled when it’s not. But it’s agreed to by many far more knowledgeable than me that it’s entirely possible that the VP -> appointment path could work because he wouldn’t explicitly be violating any existing laws because he wouldn’t have been elected three times. It is what it is.
Oh please explain where I’m wrong. The plain language is there in both amendments. You’ve offered nothing as far as analysis.
I offer the plain text of the amendments. Your response?
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:26 pm to Indefatigable
You’re dug in on this like a wife so I’m done explaining it but you’ve been shown how it would work and been given multiple legal scholars who agree it’s likely to hold up.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:26 pm to tide06
quote:
You’re just not correct on this.
Maybe it’s because you don’t want him to do it.
Maybe it’s because you are assuming it’s settled when it’s not.
But it’s agreed to by many far more knowledgeable than me that it’s entirely possible that the VP -> appointment path could work because he wouldn’t explicitly be violating any existing laws because he wouldn’t have been elected three times.
It is what it is.
If Trump runs again, I won't vote for him.
Liberals certainly won't vote for him.
But I guess if the GOP wants to do everything it can to out dumbass the democrats, so be it.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 10:27 pm to tide06
quote:
You’re dug in on this like a wife so I’m done explaining it but you’ve been shown how it would work and been given multiple legal scholars who agree it’s likely to hold up.
Of course you are, because you don’t know anything about it and you’re just repeating things you’ve read on twitter. You ran out of points from people like Bannon to regurgitate.
Also—I’d wager you’re someone, like me, who wants a textualist interpretation of the constitution in every other situation. But not this. Someone with a blue check by their name on Twitter told you we should ignore the text on this point, and you’re running with it.
This post was edited on 10/23/25 at 10:32 pm
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News