It is a nutty headline but it is accurate, because we live in a world which is getting progressively more off the walls by the minute. Here we are, less than one week into this four-year sentence we’re collective serving as a nation (although half of us think it’s a joyride and a lark) and Rep. Andy Ogles has introduced a resolution allowing presidents to serve three terms. You knew it was coming, but knowing it and seeing it are two different things. And what does that have to do with Barack Obama? You’re going to find out.
Remember when concerned Americans brought this up during the election — and were laughed at and ridiculed by MAGA?
Just like Project 25, which is fully happening now.
The “Reichstag Fire” event is next. Mark it.
— Orwell’s Ghost (@planterspunch7) January 23, 2025
In a statement issued Thursday, the GOP leader says: “President Trump’s decisive leadership stands in stark contrast to the chaos, suffering, and economic decline Americans have endured over the past four years. He has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal.”
Ogles adds, “To that end, I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to revise the limitations imposed by the 22nd Amendment on presidential terms. This amendment would allow President Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs.” […]
According to WZTV Nashville, Ogles’ resolution reads: ‘”No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, 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 twice.’”
So all this boils down to Trump is the icon of what’s left of the Republican party coupled with the ascendancy of the lunatic fringe. And the GOP doesn’t want to let go of that. Now is this realistic? Not with the slim margins in both chambers of Congress. It takes a 2/3rds majority of both the House and Senate to pass a Constitutional amendment.
But wait, there’s more. If this trial balloon doesn’t fly, then there’s another way to do this, to keep Trump in power. And this is Plan B, if Plan A doesn’t work. And it involves Barack Obama:
Dahlia Lithwick: Our end-of-year show was the great revival of “Dear (Juris)Prudence,” and some of what we discussed raised listener hackles. You expressed some thoughts on a very complicated listener question about the possibility of a third Trump presidency, and I’m going to let you respond to those objections. First I will flag again that we both agreed in advance that this was kind of a low-priority hypothetical to freak out about. But then you went on and answered it, Mark, because you’re a good lawyer.
Mark Joseph Stern: And that got me into hot water! I argued in this episode that Trump could, in theory, exploit a loophole in the Constitution to serve a third term. The 22nd Amendment says that no person can be elected as president more than twice. It doesn’t say that no person could serve as president for more than two terms. So, in theory, I explained, Trump could run as vice president in 2028, with some patsy at the top of the ticket. Then, if they win, at 12:01 p.m. on Inauguration Day, that patsy could resign, making Trump president a third time. We don’t think this will happen. We don’t want it to happen. But if we go by a rigid textualist reading of the 22nd Amendment, it could happen.
So we see where we’re at? How crazy this? And if that happened, then I say the smart money is to follow the GOP playbook and put a patsy on the top of the Democratic ticket and put Barack Obama in as the vice presidential candidate. And then you would get Trump v. Obama which is what he always made it sound like anyhow. Trump used to complain about Obama this and Obama that as if Obama was his opponent. And in this Bizarro World scenario we’re cobbling together here, Obama might be his opponent.
A number of listeners objected by citing the 12th Amendment, which says: “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” But that provision actually just reinforces the workaround I identified. Because if it’s true that a twice-elected president can serve a third term as long as he isn’t directly elected to it, then he is not “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President” under the 12th Amendment. That means he is eligible to be vice president, as well, and the 12th Amendment poses no bar to his election as VP.
Now, listeners raised a second objection, and our friend Jamelle Bouie identified this one on Bluesky as well: the argument that the distinction between being elected to office and holding office is semantic and artificial and not worth serious consideration. I respectfully disagree. This distinction actually runs throughout the Constitution. I’ll give two examples. First, the Constitution says you must be at least 30 years old to serve as senator, yet Joe Biden was elected to the Senate at age 29. Why was that allowed? Because the Constitution differentiates between the requirements to be elected senator and to hold office as a senator—and the minimum age applies only to holding office. Biden turned 30 a few weeks after he was elected, so he became constitutionally eligible to hold the office of senator.
This is some crazy legal footwork here but it is conceivable. And Project 2025 is full of a lot of crazy footwork, too. And we live in incredible times, so don’t rule out any of this. This is all possible. There’s an old expression which I suggest that we adopt right now: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and don’t be surprised by anything in between.
******
Friends, I am forced to self-promote and ask you for money. We had a bad year compared with 2023 and the end of the year has been catastrophic. Traffic died on November 5. We are a small blog and completely self-supporting by ad revenue, donations, and subscriptions. If you can afford a monthly subscription that would help us out. If you can make a donation, likewise. Our only goal is to stay in business and give you the best content we can generate. You are the wind beneath our wings. Thank you. Ursula
Don’t “miss” next time.
I hate to break it to Mark Joseph Stern (whoever he is) but he’s not exactly the brightest tool in the shed when it comes to READING the 22nd Amendment.
He’s quoted here as saying, “The 22nd Amendment says that no person can be elected as president more than twice. It doesn’t say that no person could serve as president for more than two terms.” He goes on to blather a bit more nonsense but here’s what the moron seems to have missed in his little “read-through” of the 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.”
If you read THAT little bit carefully (and that is the FIRST sentence of Section ONE of the Amendment), then you’ll notice what Mr Stern obviously missed when he was reading it. Trump, under his scenario, would have to wait for at least two years as VP before he could actually serve as president (or, by Stern’s actual phrasing, Trump would have to be willing to step down after two years and resume being the VP). The WHOLE rationale behind the amendment in the first place was BECAUSE OF REPUBLICANS, still smarting over the fact that FDR had won FOUR CONSECUTIVE ELECTIONS. So, they made a two-term limit (with that two-year leeway–had the Amendment’s language not exempted Truman who would serve more than 3 years of FDR’s final term, Truman wouldn’t have been able to run in 1952 if he’d wanted to) pretty much one of their very first priorities upon taking control of Congress in 1947. Seriously, the new Congress convened on January 3, 1947, and Michigan Republican Congressman Earl Michener introduced the initial resolution which passed the House on February 6, 1947 with a slightly different Senate version passing on March 12, followed by the House agreeing with the Senate version and resolution to amend the Constitution. This amendment was sent to the States with Maine and Michigan becoming the first states to approve the proposal on March 31, 1947 (a full half of the necessary 36 approved the amendment within just two months). The House, at the time, had 245 Republicans and 187 Democrats with 1 third-party member and 2 vacancies while the Senate had 51 Republicans and 45 Democrats (remember, there were only 48 states at the time, so only 96 Senators). The House measure passed 285-121 and the Senate measure passed 59-23 (while there were a number of “not voting” or “present” votes in both chambers, the House measure passed with more than 40 Democrats supporting and the Senate version passed with 16 Democrats supporting). The Amendment itself would not be added to the Constitution until March 1, 1951.
(There is more to the amendment but it’s a basic “grandfather” clause so that whoever was President when the Amendment became effective would not be bound by it. But I digress . . . .)
Joseph, I am sure that you really care who “Mark Joseph Stern” [sic] is, so I searched online to find out. I regret that you do not have access to an online search. Per https://www.colorado.edu/cwa/mark-joseph-stern (University of Colorado at Boulder):
Mark Joseph Stern is a staff writer covering courts and the law for Slate Magazine. Based in Washington, D.C., he has covered the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate and district courts, and state and local courts since 2013. A native of Tallahassee, Florida, Mark holds a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. in History and Art History from Georgetown University. He is a member of the Maryland Bar.
Perhaps Stern is not the “brightest tool in the shed,” but you are not the one who should be saying it. Stern is absolutely correct in his reading of the 22nd Amendment. The first part of the first sentence prohibits a person from being elected president more than twice. This does not prevent Trump, who has indeed been elected twice, from being elected vice president or speaker of the US House, and then ascending to the presidency for virtually the entire term through the death or resignation of the president (and of the vice president if Trump was speaker of the House).
Does the second part of the first sentence prevent Trump from ascending to the office of president from the vice presidency? It says: “(N)o 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 the President more than once.” You think that you have Stern here, but you don’t. Yes, this part would apply to Trump if he ascended to the presidency after having been elected vice president or House speaker in 2028. It would prevent him from being elected president more than once in the future, but it would be irrelevant because the first part of the sentence has already prevented his being elected to three terms. It does not prevent his ascending to the presidency because he has already been elected twice. To do that, the amendment would have to change the verb from “shall be elected” (future tense) to “shall have been elected” (in his whole life). As written, the 22nd Amendment prevents Trump from being elected president after he has ascended to the presidency and served more than two years as such. It does not prevent him from ascending to the presidency after he has already been elected more than once.
Your description of the history of the 22nd Amendment was interesting, but I don’t see its relevance to Trump’s situation, so I won’t comment on it.
I am glad that you are interested in the meaning of the 22nd Amendment. Have a good day.
I miswrote the first part of my reply to Joseph. I wrote
“Mark Joseph Stern”
and I added [sic]
but that is not how Joseph wrote it. He wrote
Mark Joseph Stern (whoever he is).
I apologize for my carelessness.
Augh! I understand that Sphincter Face and the Minions will try to destroy the 22nd Amendment or not even bother and he’ll just stay, but I can’t handle hearing it! Please don’t make me consider that this fat, evil dementia patient will still be alive or sentient enough to push those envelopes!! 😫
I’m sure that the sub-prime court will be able to bend the words of the Constitution to serve the Orange God-King.
THESE NUTS HAVE NO IDEA HOW THEY MIGHT IN 1 YR OR SO. COULD BE THEY WANT TO TAKE IT BACK. TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE!
To paraphrase the bandits in Treasure of The Sierra Madre: Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin constitution. The LAW created this nazi tyrant. To expect it somehow to stop him now that the LAW has given him immunity…is laughable. Neither the German government nor their high Court stopped Hitler. GIs did it by being shot at crawling through HELL. I guess America thinks it can talk/type its way out of HELL. Hey…we just got started…you ain’t seen nothing yet. NOTHING!
This is rapidly devolving from tragedy into farce. Where are Mel.Broks,,the Marx Britgers, and Robin Williams when you need them?
True on some level but dead/traumatized children aren’t a laughing matter.