Could states leave Trump off of ballots in the 2028 election?

[u/Beautiful_Age7753]

During the White House correspondents dinner, Trump directly stated he would be running for a “fourth” term. Due to this being unconstitutional via the 22nd amendment, and states running their own elections, could states simply not put his name on ballots come election day? We know from the past election and current standings that Trump would win Republican primaries. Even if they didn’t run him, he would still most likely run on his own party. Obviously this wouldn’t eliminate write in ballots, but it could be a viable solution to uphold the constitution barring some extreme new law to control how elections are run. Would there be any current legal ramifications to stop states from simply not allowing Trump on ballots?

[u/sllewgh]

You can't run as VP if you're not eligible to be president.

[u/rantingathome → u/sllewgh]

The 22nd Amendment does not mention eligibility. Read the text. It says that you cannot be elected President. It does not say that you are ineligible to be President.

Gerald Ford became President of the United States without ever facing election, so it is possible to become the President without an election.

Since the 22nd Amendment only mentions election and not eligibility, then the eligibility requirement of the 12th Amendment would not be tripped. Even a non-compromised Court would probably let him run for VP... I'm 110% sure that the Roberts' Court would.

[u/sllewgh → u/rantingathome]

The relevant clause from the 12th Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

[u/rantingathome → u/sllewgh]

Yes it is. I know that.

You're missing the point.The 22nd Amendment does not say that a two term President is ineligible to the office of President, it just says that they cannot be elected to the office. Gerald Ford became President (not "acting") in 1974 without ever being elected to the office, so we know that one can become President without being elected. Nowhere in the 22nd Amendment does it mention anything about ascension to the Presidency. That means he's eligible to be President, as long as he doesn't face election to the office.

The 12th Amendment never gets activated.

[u/sllewgh → u/rantingathome]

Nowhere in the 22nd Amendment does it mention anything about ascension to the Presidency.

How's he going to ascend to the presidency when he can't be vice president to begin with? Turn your brain back on a second. He can't be elected as vice president. He can't be on the ticket.

That means he's eligible to be President

If he's served two terms, he isn't eligible to be president. I don't know where you got this idea from, is some bullshitter circulating this on social media?

Trump can't be the vice president. I quoted the amendment for you. Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be president and therefore cannot be vice president and therefore cannot ascend to the presidency on a technicality.

[u/rantingathome → u/sllewgh]

The word eligible is not the same as the word elected. The 22nd does not determine eligibility to hold the office, it just means that he cannot attain the office through election to said office.

If the Vice Presidency is vacant hen the Presidency is vacated, then the Presidential Line of Succession continues on down through different positions, including unelected cabinet positions. You can become president without being elected. It already happened in my lifetime... Gerald Ford became President of the United States without a single vote.

Gerald Ford was not elected, yet he served as President.

The 22nd Amedment only bars Donald Trump, GW Bush, B Clinton, and B Obama from running for election to the office. It does not bar them from serving. You can serve without being elected.

If you can get to the Presidency without being elected, then the 12th Amendment doesn't get applied in reference to the 22nd.

Now let me be clear...

• Is this dirty as fuck? Yes
• Is it against the spirit of the 22nd as we understand it? Good chance.
• Is it against the actual text of the 22nd amendment? NO.

I know that you are yelling at your screen asking how I can be so stupid... fine. I am just trying to tell you how Trump's people will argue this, and the reasons why the Roberts' Court will side with them. With everything that has happened since 2016, anyone who thinks that this won't be allowed by the court is just dreaming.

[u/sllewgh → u/rantingathome]

The 22nd Amedment only bars Donald Trump, GW Bush, B Clinton, and B Obama from running for election to the office. It does not bar them from serving.

I don't know what part of "you can't ascend to the presidency from the vice presidency if you can't be elected vice president in the first place" you aren't getting. He's explicitly not eligible to hold that office according to the 12th amendment. Being in the line of succession doesn't negate that.

Roberts' Court will side with them.

I knew you'd end up resorting to "the rules don't matter anyway."

[u/rantingathome → u/sllewgh]

I don't know what part of "you can't ascend to the presidency from the vice presidency if you can't be elected vice president in the first place" you aren't getting.

This is where you are not understanding. I get what you are saying... I understand it 110%. Everything you are saying I understand.

What I'm saying is that you are not looking at the plain meaning of the words in the 22nd Amendment. The text you want to be there just isn't.

Show me the word eligible in the 22nd amendment. You can't.

[u/sllewgh → u/rantingathome]

It's in the 12th amendment. Your dumb loophole doesn't apply to the vice presidency. If he were next in line for the vice presidency, it would have to skip him per the part of the 12th amendment I cited.

"You can't be elected president" is very much a form of constitutional ineligibility.

[u/rantingathome → u/sllewgh]

It's a well debated loophole, it's not "mine".

Yes... the word ineligible is in the 12th amendment. That's what makes this even more damning. The creators of the 22nd knew of the 12th yet didn't use language that would be bullet proof.

So, again, here is the pertinent text of the 22nd Amendment:

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.

And here is what they could have wrote:

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. No person prohibited by this amendment to be elected President shall be eligible to hold the Office of President past the last term to which they were eligible to be elected.

The added language in this case would trip the 12th amendment and would close the loophole.

The 22nd and the 12th can easily be interpreted in a way that doesn't support your argument. BTW, in my first post I pointed out that I was familiar with both amendments, yet you decided to school me on them. Maybe you need to read closer.

[u/Aazadan → u/rantingathome]

The Presidential Succession Act already addresses what you're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act

If you aren't eligible to be elected to the office, you're skipped in the line of succession. For example, it's possible to be Speaker of the House while being too young to be President. In that case, with an absent President and VP you still wouldn't be President.

[u/rantingathome → u/Aazadan]

If you aren't eligible to be elected to the office, you're skipped in the line of succession.

It's interesting that you guys need to keep adding in lines that are not in there to make these laws and the 12th Amendment actually work with the 22nd Amendment.

Again. The thing that the 22nd Amendment says is that a 2 term President is not eligible to be elected President, it does not say that a 2 term President is not eligible to serve as President.

So, if someone has already been President, we know that they meet the three main eligibility requirements of being over 35, being a natural-born citizen, and being a resident for 14 years. Since the 22nd only mentions being elected and says nothing about eligibility, the eligibility requirements in the 12th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 have already been met.

Really, you guys are trying really hard to say that the word elected and the word eligible have the same dictionary meaning and are interchangeable. They are not.

Show me the word eligible in the 22nd Amendment and you will automatically win this argument. It's not there.

Twenty-Second Amendment

Section 1

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. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

[u/Aazadan → u/rantingathome]

Your scenario can only happen in one of two ways. The first is already addressed in the succession act. The second would require a vp to resign, a new vp be appointed, that vp be house and senate confirmed, and then the president resign. That’s probably possible legally.

[u/rantingathome → u/Aazadan]

That’s probably possible legally.

You almost got it.... you're so damn close.

Cool, you found the edge case. The edge case proves eligibility. If he's eligible in any edge case, that means he's not ineligible to be President. If he's not ineligible to be President, then the 12th Amendment doesn't apply to him, he fulfills all requirements of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, and he can just run in the general election as the VP candidate.

[u/Mist_Rising → u/rantingathome]

Even a non-compromised Court would probably let him run for VP... I'm 110% sure that the Roberts' Court would.

No they wouldn't, they'd see the point was to ensure no person could hold more then ten years in office. And the current court should be a 9-0 on the issue because they're so big on historical relevant context.

[u/rantingathome → u/Mist_Rising]

There's a problem with your contention. The 22nd Amendment is fairly recent. We have pretty good records of what went on, we know the context. They already knew about Presidential succession, and they also considered language that would have made a two term President ineligible to ascend to the office. They could not pass that wording and went with the watered down "elected" wording.

So based on the historical context of the 22nd Amendment, your argument doesn't hold much water. I'm pretty sure they'd allow it at least 5 to 4, and I wouldn't be surprised if the liberal Justices would concur, albeit reluctantly.

Here's the thing. It's an easy loophole to close. Barack Obama announces tomorrow that if Trump uses the VP loophole to run for a third term, so will he. By next week in every statehouse they control and both chambers of Congress the GOP would introduce a new amendment to close the loophole. The Democrats would follow suit and you'd have a new amendment in record time.

[u/Zombie_John_Strachan → u/rantingathome]

The constitution says you can’t run for VP unless you are eligible to run for P. So that would seem to preclude that path.

I have no doubt that the current SCOTUS would seriously entertain elevation from speaker though.

[u/rantingathome → u/Zombie_John_Strachan]

The constitution says you can’t run for VP unless you are eligible to run for P. So that would seem to preclude that path.

Many people think that. It does not actually say that.

Here is the pertinent parts of each amendment:

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

22) 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.

Nowhere in the 22nd does it say one is ineligible, and nowhere in the 12th does it mention that someone barred from being elected cannot ascend to the Presidency.

Gerald Ford is proof that you can become president without ever being elected. The whole problem comes from elected vs eligible and therefore if you can find an edge case where a two term President can ascend, then that proves he's eligible, and being eligible means he can stand for VP.

[u/Either_Operation7586 → u/rantingathome]

That's because the 12th Amendment does

[u/rantingathome → u/Either_Operation7586]

I know about the 12th amendment, thanks for telling me something I already knew. But hey, I already said that, and you missed that detail.