When the founding father designed the office of the US president, they did so with a keen memory of a monarchy that was fresh in their hearts. George Washington has set a precedent for the president not serving more than two terms, as the example remains the gold standard of American Republican virtue. That standard had not broken for nearly 150 years until Franklin Delano Roosevelt won four unprecedented terms. The response to the violation was quick and certain. In 1951, the state ratified the 22nd Amendment, preventing the state from being elected more than once as president.
Today, as political forces are dissolved and passions rise, there are whispers — some donald Trump himself is spoken out loud — suggesting how he returns to his third term of presidency. As a constitutionalist, my duty is not to assess the merit of humanity, but to assess the legality of the method. And let me state that clearly: for Donald Trump, or someone who has been elected twice before, there is no constitutional effective method – serving as President of the United States in his third term.
Here we look at the most commonly floating legal endruns around the 22nd Amendment, providing constitutional conservatives with the ammunition they need to protect constitutional order.
Vice President's loophole: President Trojan
Claim: Donald Trump ran as vice president on a ticket in 2028, won, and then could envision a presidency if the sitting president is resigned or neutralised.
Response: This gambit collapses under constitutional scrutiny.
First, the 12th Amendment is as follows:
Those who are not qualified in the President's office by the Constitution cannot qualify as Vice President of the United States.
Amendment to Article 22 renders Trump unable to serve in that role as more than once elected president, and the 12th Amendment cannot serve as an unqualified person from the Vice President.
You might argue that the 22nd amendment only prohibits failure to succeed through the line of success. However, this is a legal fragment that ignores the original intent.
The framers of the 22nd Amendment responded to FDR's unprecedented tenure, which was expressly intended to restore Washington's norms. They tried to prevent anyone from accumulating so much executive power over time. Destroying this by electing a man like the Vice President and coordinating the president's resignation would be a humiliation against the very principle of time limits.
Let's be clear: Americans will see through this manipulation. It corresponds to the de facto third term covered in procedural tricks. It would erode public trust in the administrative sector and ignite a constitutional crisis that true conservatives would not want to endure.
Amendment to 22nd Amendment: Slow and slippery slopes
Request: Congress or states may amend the Constitution to allow a third term for a president who has served non-continuously.
Response: Although technically permitted under Article 5, the practical and moral obstacles are substantial.
President Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) introduced such a proposal. However, to succeed, two-thirds of votes will be required in both the House and Senate, and ratification by 38 states. It is a nearly insurmountable climb in today's divided political climate.
Furthermore, the push to abolish the president's term limits the smack of political convenience, rather than principled constitutional reform. The two-term restrictions exist to prevent enforcement facilities from settling. It is a safeguard of freedom, not a speed bump that is flattened by populism.
If conservatives truly believe in the restraint of government power, they must defend the 22nd Amendment, even when detaining someone they respect. To advocate for an abolition for one person is to treat the Constitution as a tool of power, not a charter of power.
Legal Issues for the 22nd Amendment: The Oddie's Essentials
Claim: Some legal theorists may argue that the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional, as it limits voter choices or violates equal protections.
Response: This is the most self-destructive argument I can imagine.
The 22nd Amendment is itself part of the Constitution. When ratified based on Article V, its authority is highest. There is no American legal authority to override it. Not Congress, not courts, and certainly not the ambitions of the former president.
Even putting this idea into perspective suggests a dangerous misconception of the constitutional government. If we can put aside the explicit constitutional limitations of the Judicial Fiat, the entire document is nothing more than parchment.
The De facto third term by the Puppet President: The Ghost of Soft Despots
Claim: Trump was able to place a Loyalist in the White House and exercise control from the shadows.
Response: Regulation is legally difficult, but this strategy is morally bankrupt and politically toxic.
This arrangement makes the president a mere appearance and enhances private citizens with de facto enforceability without accountability. It mimics the tactics of the strong foreigners (Putin's handpicked successors come to mind), rather than the legacy of Washington, Jefferson or Reagan.
It also violates the spirit of Article 2. This gives one president enforcement power. It's not a dual arrangement, not a shadow cabinet, not a backroom power broker. Constitutional governments rely on transparent, legitimate authority.
Standing Guard of the Gate
We must not be engrossed in political leadership and abandon structures designed to keep tyranny at bay. The 22nd Amendment is not an obstacle to greatness. It is the guardian of freedom.
As Republic conservatives, constitutionalists and advocates, we must be the first to refuse any effort to undermine the deadline for the presidency. Any attempt to return a twice-elected president to power through legal exercises, legislative machinations, or puppet regimes must be met with prompt and voice opposition.
History will not forgive those who have risen quietly while the constitutional floods are abused.
And me? Echoes Jefferson's spirit.
On the issue of power, we should no longer hear confidence in humans, but let us bind him from mischief by the constitutional chains.
Let's tie up even the things we respect in the same chain.
