Post New

David Pepper in his news letter looks at why a 3rd term is impossible and why Trump keeps bringing it up like a bad burrito.

https://davidpepper.substack.com/p/a-third-trump-t...

Here's where he gets to the why.
The Point: Loyalty and Discipline

So what’s really going on if the path to three terms seems non-viable?

To me, the answer is very clear.

Being a lame duck puts Trump in a terribly weak position from the outset.

Trump knows full well that without the threat of another term, his power and sway could fade very quickly—especially as his poll numbers tank. And this is not just with respect to Democrats or the country writ large, but is especially the case within his own party.

And as a personal matter, I guarantee you nothing irks Trump more than the talk of other Republicans even thinking about being president after him—let alone taking early steps to get ahead in that competition.

So, even dangling out the prospects of a third term complicates things for 1) those who might move too aggressively with an eye on 2028 (no doubt that’s already happening on the inside of GOP circles), and 2) anyone tempted to break with him thinking he won’t be relevant much longer.

(In this context, since Musk can’t run for president, his getting attention doesn’t threaten Trump as much.)

And remember, this all comes after Trump has experienced a decade of GOPers embracing nearly every one of his outrageous and lawless positions. That the 2020 election was stolen. That ending birthright citizenship is constitutional. Thinking he can gut voting rights via an executive order. Canada and Greenland and the lawless deportations under the Alien Enemies Act (as if we’re at war with Venezuela). He’s even gotten them to call to impeach judges who dare to stand with the Constitution against his lawless acts.

Because he’s seen all that, just as we have, he knows the GOP lemmings are dumb enough to parrot his third term nonsense. And since the battle in the GOP is over who is most loyal to Trump, he knows (and he’s right) that once a bunch start to talk that way, no one will be brave enough to say otherwise—including people like JD Vance, who would otherwise be ramping up for 2028.

My guess is, he is already pressuring other Republicans to echo his calls for a third term. And we know that that is exactly what many of them will do (as others try to duck the issue entirely).

And the louder the talk grows among Republicans that they support a third term (and start to echo ridiculous arguments as to why it’s Constitutional, when it clearly isn’t), the more that echo chamber will keep 2028 suitors from daring to come forward.

And all this maximizes Trump’s lock on power and a compliant GOP for as long as possible, even if there still is no viable legal path to get that third term.

And all this maximizes Trump’s lock on power and a compliant GOP for as long as possible, even if there still is no viable legal path to get that third term.

God help us all if he somehow manages a 3rd term with DOJ and Supreme Court complicity. He's said "there might be ways". Perhaps he's just lying his orange arse like usual, but I'm praying someone takes him out much sooner than that, before even the midterms. And I mean that how you probably think I mean it. And bonus points for taking out Vance as well. That might be enough of an impetus for "little Marco", to realize that he needs to be more of a traditional republican.

the most likely reason is that trump will garner\hold most of the gop funds going forward, and this blather is to maintain maximum flow.
whether he runs or not, it will be his cudgel for obedience.
let's say he wants one of the trumplets to run...who is to disagree?

and if not running, am sure trump thinks the money is his anyway.

If he racially profiles, AND puts Asian-American Citizens in cages......

......then could he run as a Democrat and get a 3rd term?

Why not let the Liberals do it ---they do it best.

Why does Trump keep [trolling the libs] about a 3rd term?

Because he knows the media is full of Teh Stooopid and they'll dutifully imply that he wants to become emperor ;).

Why does Trump keep [trolling the libs] about a 3rd term?

Because he knows the media is full of Teh Stooopid and they'll dutifully imply that he wants to become emperor

Well, you gotta admit that he has shown himself willing to commit to some of his more outlandish things.

When he first started [trolling the libs] about Greenland, lots of his supporters (including you) felt that he didn't really want Greenland. That it was just to achieve some other thing. But it turns out, no, he wasn't actually trolling the libs. He's genuinely dead set on getting Greenland. He has identified it as a genuine national security goal and is really, seriously pursuing that as a policy - and says so frequently. So I think that we're all kind of required to take all this stuff seriously, because Trump is perfectly willing to actually pursue policies that even his supporters think he's not actually going to follow through with.

Well, you gotta admit that he has shown himself willing to commit to some of his more outlandish things.

Sure, but not on this. He's already said he's done after this term.

He's genuinely dead set on getting Greenland. He has identified it as a genuine national security goal and is really, seriously pursuing that as a policy - and says so frequently. So I think that we're all kind of required to take all this stuff seriously, because Trump is perfectly willing to actually pursue policies that even his supporters think he's not actually going to follow through with.

Let me know when the paratroops land up there and start planting US flags!

Let me know when the paratroops land up there and start planting US flags!

I'm hopeful that it won't come to that. He might simply try to seriously pursue persuading/forcing Denmark to "voluntarily" give it to us. But it's clear that a policy that most Trump supporters dismissed as just a gambit for some other purpose was, in fact, not a ploy at all. It's what he genuinely decided to do.

So if Trump says that he believes he can serve a third term, there's a non-trivial chance that he means it.

He's genuinely dead set on getting Greenland.

Yep. And he's said that military force is an option. Which would be required, because the new leader of Greenland is saying "no" quite definitively.

So could he do it? Congress has let the Executive get away with a lot for the past 10-15 years in terms of military interventions. Could they stop him? I think that resolution/authorization for use of military force is still in place long after 9/11 has ceased to be relevant. If so, the Executive could argue that they still have the authority to order attacks or invasions.

I think the third term would be unachievable. Each state has to put the candidates on their ballots, and there are enough non-Felon states that would refuse based on the Constitution. CA, NY, IL, CO, and several others would never do it. So he couldn't hope to receive enough votes, assuming he could get the Rep nomination.

And they couldn't amend the Constitution that quickly to repeal the term limit (again, assuming they would have the votes in the states to get that done anyway, which they wouldn't).

I said: God help us all if he somehow manages a 3rd term with DOJ and Supreme Court complicity.

So, albaby, does the need to amend the Constitution make a 3rd Trump term virtually impossible? Since it requires 2/3 of both the House and Senate as well as ratification by 75% of the states?

Or is there a tricky legalese way to still satisfy what the Constitution has to say about that currently?

"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."

I'm hopeful that it won't come to that.

I highly doubt it comes to that.

So if Trump says that he believes he can serve a third term, there's a non-trivial chance that he means it.

I highly doubt he means it.

So, albaby, does the need to amend the Constitution make a 3rd Trump term virtually impossible? Since it requires 2/3 of both the House and Senate as well as ratification by 75% of the states?

Or is there a tricky legalese way to still satisfy what the Constitution has to say about that currently?

There is a tricky legalese way to do that, yes.

The 22nd Amendment prohibits someone from being elected more than twice to the office of President. However, it does not prohibit someone from holding the office more than twice. So if Trump were to run as Vice President to a pliant lackey, who resigned upon taking office, then he could step into the office. There's an argument he can't run as a VP candidate either, but that's a little less cut-and-dried than this approach.

I highly doubt he means it.

You also very much doubted that he really wanted Greenland. Yet here we are, with him very much actually pursuing Greenland....

Doesn't the 12th Amendment preclude that end around?

The last sentence of that Amendment states:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

So if Trump were to run as Vice President to a pliant lackey, who resigned upon taking office, then he could step into the office.

Ye Olde Medvedev Gambit.

just because there is no legal viable path to 3rd term , does not mean there is no viable path..I see no opposition so far...

time to replay my favorite song from Trump 1.0.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Dg-g7t2l4

Doesn't the 12th Amendment preclude that end around?

The last sentence of that Amendment states:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Most would say yes, but it's not as clear as the prohibition against him running directly for the office.

Technically, the 22nd Amendment prohibits someone from being elected twice to the office of President. But it doesn't say that the person is ineligible to hold the office. So one could argue that there's no problem with Trump being elected (or appointed) to the office of Vice President. Once there, he could then take the office of President should a vacancy arise (again, the 22nd Amendment prohibits only election, not holding the office a third time).

The other, more complicated path that avoids this problem is if he had the House appoint him Speaker, ran a pair of compliant puppets as Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, and had them both resign simultaneously. Then he would assume the presidency again, bypassing both the 22nd and 12th Amendments.

" The other, more complicated path that avoids this problem is if he had the House appoint him Speaker, ran a pair of compliant puppets as Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, and had them both resign simultaneously. Then he would assume the presidency again, bypassing both the 22nd and 12th Amendments."

good morning, wouldn't the puppets have to win? Are you suggesting the Dem party is that hopeless and pathetic? Thank you.

good morning, wouldn't the puppets have to win? Are you suggesting the Dem party is that hopeless and pathetic? Thank you.

Yes, the puppet would have to win. No, I'm not suggesting the Dem party is hopeless or pathetic. The implicit assumption in all of these discussions is that as we head into the 2028 election cycle that Trump is popular enough that he would be a winning candidate if he were to run again, and is merely being blocked by the 22nd Amendment. In that scenario, he could turn to a kludge like running Don Jr. as the candidate with the expectation that he'd step aside for his father if elected.

DJT has won two Presidential elections. He is good at running for President. He is good at energizing his supporters, he is very good at media, and has great political instincts for what will draw attention. And he has now completely dominated his political party. One need not posit that the Democrats are hopeless or pathetic to observe that they could lose to him again, should he run for office again (either by repeal of the 22nd Amendment or some hack).

" DJT has won two Presidential elections. He is good at running for President. He is good at energizing his supporters, he is very good at media, and has great political instincts for what will draw attention. And he has now completely dominated his political party. One need not posit that the Democrats are hopeless or pathetic to observe that they could lose to him again, should he run for office again (either by repeal of the 22nd Amendment or some hack)"

Come on man, smart guy like you still in denial? Carville says you don't play your 7th string quarterback at the big game, that's wrong? If Hunter and Jill had announced, two years ago, that Joe would not be seeking reelection, whoever earned the Dem nomination fair and square would have beat trump, period. If Harris had answered, we failed at the border, after I win, my first hire will be Jeh Johnson, and we will secure the border the way Obama did, she wins, period. With all due respect, you over think things bud, it's not that complicated. Trump didn't win, the Dems found a way to lose, again.

Come on man, smart guy like you still in denial? Carville says you don't play your 7th string quarterback at the big game, that's wrong? If Hunter and Jill had announced, two years ago, that Joe would not be seeking reelection, whoever earned the Dem nomination fair and square would have beat trump, period.

No, I think all of that is wrong. Had Biden declined to run, it would be entirely possible for whoever took the nomination to lose to Trump. Voters were mad about inflation, and mad about border policy - and that wasn't going to go away for any replacement candidate. Almost no one knows who Jeh Johnson is other than political junkies, and it's hard to see any candidate emerging from a competitive Democratic nomination that wouldn't have been saddled with the bad politics of the border problems - no matter what they said in the campaign. And that's ignoring the fact that Harris would have been the odds-on favorite to win the nomination to begin with. Trump has many, many, MANY flaws - but he is a formidable media presence, was far better equipped to do outreach on New Media rather than old, and had the headwind both of thermostatic rejection of the majority party and voter dissatisfaction with the economy, the border, and crime. There's no "slam dunk" win for the Democrats in an alternate timeline.

Trump could only run for a third term if he's still very, very popular among the GOP - which is only going to happen if he's in decent shape with the overall electorate, with a general satisfaction with economic conditions. In that scenario, the Democrats could run a passable campaign and still lose, especially if we have another cycle where social issues like immigration and crime are still high-salience and healthcare/abortion are low-salience.

" And that's ignoring the fact that Harris would have been the odds-on favorite to win the nomination to begin with. Trump has many, many, MANY flaws - but he is a formidable media presence, was far better equipped to do outreach on New Media rather than old, and had the headwind both of thermostatic rejection of the majority party and voter dissatisfaction with the economy, the border, and crime. There's no "slam dunk" win for the Democrats in an alternate timeline."


Wow, Harris couldn't have said, I will return to the Obama border policies? Do voters know who Obama is? If the Dems honored the nomination process, Harris wins? Obama, Pelosi, etc don't agree with you. You are out their bud, good luck and stay well.

Wow, Harris couldn't have said, I will return to the Obama border policies?

She could have said it, but it's not likely to have been very effective. She's part of the Administration - the overwhelming majority of voters will end up associating her with whatever the Administration has been doing anyway. Plus, voter perception of Democrats in general on immigration and border issues was very bad, making it an uphill climb for her to change their minds on it.

Do voters know who Obama is?

Yeah, the guy who screwed up the border before Trump took over. I doubt there are many voters who could accurately tell you the difference between Obama and Biden's border policies, and I doubt there are very many voters who are unhappy with Biden's performance on the border who would think fondly of Obama's. Voters are mostly (and rationally) ignorant of the details of candidates' actual positions or records.

If the Dems honored the nomination process, Harris wins?

She's the favorite, yes. She's the incumbent Vice President, has the enormous fundraising powers and free press that comes with it. Unlike in 2016, there was no obvious alternative in waiting that the party would consolidate around. So the most likely outcome of a primary is that she wins it. I think you're misreading what Pelosi said - she said that Harris would have been stronger if there had been a full open primary, and that she would have done well in the primary.

I asked an esteemed colleague, a rather seasoned and nuanced lawyer with a large body of experience in administrative law, about elections and succession and those who try to hold on to power, in 2016. Henry had an interesting take. He pointed me to a Columbia law review article about how roughly half the time, in reasonably solvent/modern/first world democracies, a leader will try to hold on to power if they either lose an election, or will overstay their welcome past when term limits kick in.

Half. That was rather astounding, but there it was, laid out in a large list of examples. And we're not talking DPRK or Idi Amin type stuff.

I'll be at the big protest in DC this weekend. I worked in the Bush and Obama WH. Though I had a reasonable level of policy disagreements with both men, neither was an ignoble scum. Neither appointed boot-licking toadies without a modicum of merit to the Cabinet.

" I think you're misreading what Pelosi said - she said that Harris would have been stronger if there had been a full open primary, and that she would have done well in the primary."

I guess we will agree to disagree, she won't even try again in 28, but we shall see. Neither Obama nor Pelosi thought Harris was the best candidate.

Neither Obama nor Pelosi thought Harris was the best candidate.

Entirely possible. Obama and Pelosi represent different (though overlapping) wings of the Democratic party, and Harris might not have been best for either of their factions. Even assuming there is a single "best" candidate to be the nominee, it's also not unusual for that candidate to not win the primary. Nor am I saying that it's certain that Harris would have won the nomination.

But being the sitting vice president is an enormous advantage in a primary - it's very rare for an incumbent VP to enter the race and lose the nomination. The reworked primary calendar also favored Harris compared to her 2016 run, moving South Carolina ahead of Iowa and moving California out of June and onto the March 5 Super Tuesday.

Who do you think would have beaten her? I can't think of anyone but Newsom that I would think would be a favorite over her - and not by much.

Trump could only run for a third term if he's still very, very popular among the GOP - which is only going to happen if he's in decent shape with the overall electorate, with a general satisfaction with economic conditions. In that scenario, the Democrats could run a passable campaign and still lose, especially if we have another cycle where social issues like immigration and crime are still high-salience and healthcare/abortion are low-salience. - albaby

----------------------

How could Trump run for a third term? The 22nd establishes a limit of being elected twice, once if he serves more than two years of an unexpired term.

How could Trump run for a third term? The 22nd establishes a limit of being elected twice, once if he serves more than two years of an unexpired term.

The thread was talking about the very remote strategies where Trump might try to secure a third term without having to get elected: standing up either one or two loyalists as the nominal candidates, while he himself either is the VP candidate or Speaker of the House who will assume office when they resign after the election. The other possibility, of course, is amending the 22nd Amendment itself, though that is next to impossible.

I was pointing out that even these remote strategies (incredibly unlikely as they are) are only possible if Trump is popular enough that he would win a third term if the 22nd Amendment weren't there to stop him from running. If he weren't popular enough to win on his own, he wouldn't be popular enough to propel a loyalist stand-in to victory.

How could Trump run for a third term? The 22nd establishes a limit of being elected twice, once if he serves more than two years of an unexpired term.

1. JD Vance (or it could be someone else) runs for president, with DTrump as VP.

2 if they win, after inauguration, Vance steps down. Trump becomes president.

A few folks have said that other verbiage in the Constitution prohibits a person from running for VP if the Constitution would otherwise disqualify that person from being elected president, but that’s an untested theory and apparently requires some mental gymnastics to make the case; not all legal eagles are impressed with the argument.


So yes, theoretically it’s possible, and that’s the “method” Trump would probably employ if he decided to try for a third term.

Ya. It doesn't even matter whether it's feasible, as long as you can put something up, even if it's litigated, just put something up and delay, delay, delay. If he's knocked out by litigation, he can whine about that, if he's elected, but knocked out... Jan 6 plus. Let's hope the coming recession knocks him out of the running.

So yes, theoretically it’s possible, and that’s the “method” Trump would probably employ if he decided to try for a third term.

What about the less constitutionally troublesome choice of simply tossing the constitution aside and declaring himself president for life? As I recall, he had a trial run at that a little over 4 years ago. Seemed to be a decent proof of concept to me.

--Peter

What about the less constitutionally troublesome choice of simply tossing the constitution aside and declaring himself president for life? As I recall, he had a trial run at that a little over 4 years ago. Seemed to be a decent proof of concept to me.

He didn't do that four years ago. Back then, he was also trying to travel under a hack or kludge, trying to claim that he was the rightful holder of the office without just tossing the constitution aside.

It's the timid approach. You're trying to stay in office - but using a method that if you fail, you're not up against a firing squad or in jail the rest of his life. Trump almost certainly thought that as long as he was using lawyers to stay in power, there was no downside. Try to stay President - but if you fail, no harm no foul and you just get to be a rich ex-President. TPTB disagreed that he personally had stayed on the correct side of the line between legally creative challenge vs. criminal conspiracy, but he was definitely putting in the effort to position himself on the correct side.

Tossing out the Constitution altogether? You better be damn certain that you'll win, or else you're up against the wall.

He didn't do that four years ago.

Not quite. But pretty darn close. Storm the Capitol on Jan 6. Convince them all to count the vote for you. That was 2021. But he stopped short of convincing them all to vote for him.

2029: Storm the Capitol on Jan 6. Bring guns this time and start using them on the politicians. There's no one left to vote, so declare yourself El Presidente for life. Not all that different. And just like in 2021, use mob boss tactics to skillfully separate yourself from the planning and preparation for the Capitol storming - just in case things go bad. He wasn't directing them, they were acting on their own.

--Peter

Not quite. But pretty darn close. Storm the Capitol on Jan 6. Convince them all to count the vote for you. That was 2021. But he stopped short of convincing them all to vote for him.

It wasn't close, at least in strategy. It is a completely different category to try to remain in power under color of law (however far=fetched the theory) and retain the trappings of the Constitution than it is to nakedly try to remain in power by throwing the Constitution away. Again, the risks of failure are in a completely different order of magnitude: fail in the former and you're just out your legal fees, fail in the latter and your dead.

Completely different level of risk, and completely different approach. Even if the desired outcome is the same - stay in power - it's a whole 'nuther world if you try to dispense with working within the system and just declare yourself a military dictator.

He wasn't trying to work within the system last time. He counted on the mob doing his dirty work. Congress evacuated, Capitol police were overwhelmed. There really wasn't much to stop him from seizing power, as near as I can tell. Except, perhaps, he didn't have enough lackeys and sycophants in key positions (like the Joint Chiefs). What would have stopped him otherwise? (serious question**)




**It has been made clear to me that the peaceful transfer of power (and obeying judges, etc) is more of a "norm" than anything else. If people don't respect the norms, law and order fly out the window.

**It has been made clear to me that the peaceful transfer of power (and obeying judges, etc) is more of a "norm" than anything else. If people don't respect the norms, law and order fly out the window.

I agree. I've said a few times that what's been laid bare is the system depends on norms that can be disregarded with little recourse or repercussions.

I agree. I've said a few times that what's been laid bare is the system depends on norms that can be disregarded with little recourse or repercussions.

True, when one party controls both houses of Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. And don't try to tell me the Republicans don't control the Supreme Court. And when that one party has no respect for the Constitution.

Completely different level of risk, and completely different approach. Even if the desired outcome is the same - stay in power - it's a whole 'nuther world if you try to dispense with working within the system and just declare yourself a military dictator.

Echoing previous posters, how much of a risk is it really at this point? I was, not exactly hoping, but expecting, that the January 6 rioters would be massacred and there would be 400 to 500 casualties. If that had happened, there would be no more talk of insurrection and no Trump second term. Instead, they were handled with kid gloves, and now they get an amnesty/pardon. Don't tell me white privilege doesn't exist.

If Trump just declared himself dictator for life, who is going to oppose him? definitely not his b1tch, the Republican Party. The mealy-mouthed Democrats, whose biggest accomplishment so far is Corey Booker talking for 25 hours as if that matters at all? Our legislators are losers, one and all. Maybe except for Jasmine Crockett.

True, when one party controls both houses of Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. And don't try to tell me the Republicans don't control the Supreme Court. And when that one party has no respect for the Constitution.

No, the norms that I am talking about are different. It seems we can't make laws on everything or fashion quick remedies for when there is a demagogue in power. We shouldn't have to, but if we get past this, it should be considered. Even disregarding a judge's orders seems to have no ultimate teeth, and norms are mere conventions - no force at all. So what are the brakes here? Virtually none. We have to hope the Siupremes side with law and order, but what are the odds? 50-50. But even then, how do we enforce anything judge's decide?

And yes, conservative's have their own view of how the Constitution should be interpreted, and sometimes they are close to being right. Not MAGA though. To MAGA it's a buzzword that always favors them and not libs. And it wrankles us, and they like that.

So we're stuck, both Dope and Jedi think the tariff war's premise is dumb, but that doesn't help us now. In spite of Trump stating he wanted to keep the dollar as the world's currency - his moves make that less likely. WZ urges us to protest, and that seems a little feeble approach but that's all we have it seems, other than courts, which have dubious enforcement, even if they agree with us. This is not looking god for us.

" WZ urges us to protest, and that seems a little feeble approach"

Just got back from the local Trump protest. Good turnout for a smallish town, on what ws a cold and windy day ( north wind off of the water is always chilly this time of year ).

It was good to see that there are similar thinkers out there. This is early stages, and mid terms
are about 18 months out, so a good amount of time to build momentum. I will donate money, but Harris raised a huge amount of money and it didn't get her the win. Hate to say it, but
Americans are gonna have to FEEL the consequences of voting for Trump. And I am really, really sure that Trump won't let us down in that regard.

Americans are gonna have to FEEL the consequences of voting for Trump

Yah, that's on it's way, in the meantime there were maybe 20 seniors here that had a March no one knew about. It appears they don't know about the @everyone command in FB.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.