President Donald Trump on Sunday did not dismiss the idea of pursuing a third term in the White House, despite the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution prohibiting it, claiming that “there are methods” to achieving this and emphasizing that he was “not joking.”

Possibly, here is a lawyer’s take on it:

https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/

I am not a lawyer. But this might be a clue:

“perhaps the Nation could call on a former two-term President by electing him as Vice President even with the knowledge that the plan all along was for the President to resign immediately upon taking Office.”

  • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)English
    54•9 days ago

    Not a lawyer, but the law is written so that if you wouldn’t legally be able to serve as President you cannot be VP either, meaning legally this plan has no legs.

    • @RegularJoe@lemmy.worldOP
      9•9 days ago

      That’s what I thought, too, But according to that law firm’s (https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/) article,

      While the Amendment’s drafters spilled extra ink ensuring that someone who is elevated to the Presidency for more than two years of another President’s term due to that other President’s death or removal from office, it does nothing to clarify that one who is elected twice cannot rise to the Presidency again. In short, if the 22nd Amendment’s purpose was to ensure that there was a 10 year maximum on service for anyone regardless of how they became President, it could have said so.

      and with our Supreme Court in his pocket…

      https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/

      • Australis13
        2•9 days ago

        I’m not a lawyer either, but my take on it is that they will argue that whilst the 12th Amendment requires that the VP candidate be eligible for the office of President, that eligibility is not the same as the election constraint of the 22nd Amendment and that the 22nd Amendment doesn’t actually address eligibility.