Does the Constitution limit the ability of a twice-before-elected President to serve as Vice-President?

I invite your commentary, for and against. I have my own opinion on the matter; but, not yet willing to reveal where I hold opinion.

No, I don't think it does, but Trump would never agree to be second banana, so it doesn't matter.

He's definately going to try to run a third time, but not as VP.

I think Trump will use Democrat lawfare and sabotage as a argument for a third term. I would personally agree with it to. I have never seen such an effort by the judicial system in all my life try so hard and repeatedly to try and take down a sitting President. Nothing has changed either.

America is about as democratic as a tomato is a vegetable.

Enjoy your facade.

He's definitely going to try to run a third time, but not as VP.

Actually, I don't think he's going to try to run again, I think he will try to stay in power without an election.

He said if elected, he would be a dictator on day one, and we would never have to have another election. Dictators don't do elections.

Was Kamala really that bad?

Heh, I 'think I've heard some dictators hold votes, even after they gained power.

Being so popular in fact, that they receive 110% of the vote.

I don't 'think so,

And even if they could be vice president, I think they'd be skipped over in succession.

Vice President barely 'had any powers except succession for years I think.

That tie breaking vote.

. . . Even now, I 'think a lot of the Vice President powers are 'optional, dependent on how much the President wants to use them?

Still, I don't really know what the Constitution says,

At 'most I'd imagine it's a so obvious it doesn't need to be written down rule.

Which 'technically could be a loophole maybe.

But I think people would be pretty quick to close off any option of it being used, if someone tried to use it.

It's funny how you guys went from the most secure elections in history to the end of Democracy in less than 4 years. What a truly weak system your founders created.

Near whenever you speak,

'Truly I often wish you would say something 'interesting, 'thoughtful, 'constructive, 'illuminating.

Alas, I am frequently disappointed.

I would be interested if you spoke on history or law that you were familiar with.

Perhaps Canadian history and law,

Times your system has worked well, times it has worked badly, items it shares in common with the US, items it differs with the US.

But no,

'Again, I am disappointed.

I'd be disappointed too if my country lost democracy so easily.

I have never seen such an effort by the judicial system in all my life try so hard and repeatedly to try and take down a sitting President. 

That's because the judicial system has never had to deal with a president that blatantly broke so many laws. He's the one that packed the federal courts with loyalists and still they are overwhelmed by his lawlessness. Even loyalist judges can't say Trump is allowed override the constitution with Executive orders.

Heh, I 'think I've heard some dictators hold votes, even after they gained power.

Trump isn't deploying the military against the American people because he wants to have an election, he has consistently shown us that he couldn't give a shit less to how they vote.

Being so popular in fact, that they receive 110% of the vote.

LOL, I don't think Trump would settle for only 110%, this is the guy who has promised to reduce drug prices 1500%, if he can reduce prices 1500%, then he can easily get 1000% of the vote.

What makes you think the question is about Trump? I never mentioned a president by name. It could be easily about Oba'a, or Clinton, or Bush 43, for example. But, I understand fixation, a Socialist ideal, of course.

Did I mention a president by name? No, it's a general question, but the Constitution does say [22nd amendment] "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." See my response to Sidewalker.

Did I mention a president by name? No, it's a general question, but the Constitution does say [22nd amendment] "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." See my response to Sidewalker.

Trump will seek a third term to avoid another impeachment and criminal charges.

lol, it's clear Trump is gonna run as vice president with someone else. People are gonna lose their shit.

What relevance has Lalaka to this string? She's not been in the office of the presidency even once, let alone twice, and has never even been nominated by a convention of her peers to run, but merely appointed by them to the candidacy which failed while amassing a debt of over $1B.

But I lived in San Francisco when she was SF DA, thanks to player Willie Brown, and when elected by an idiotic electorate to AG, so I am well seasoned to her lack of competence as a dog catcher, though I would gladly put her in the cage, myself. Just another communist, which, as an eco-political system, has never endured anywhere longer than even 100 years. Barely 80, and, on average, <40. So, what's to recommend Lalaka?

How does a third Trump term avoid impeachment, let alone criminal charges? DOJ policy, alone, allegedly prohibits presidential indictment, but department policy is not statutory law, while a read of Article I, Section 3, clause 7 clearly stipulates a sitting president "...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." The law is superior to any dept policy; always, though we have been duped to believe otherwise for over 50 years, thanks to Nixon, and his AG, Mitchell, who established the aforementioned policy to try to save Nixon from shame. The effort failed, but the policy continues.

What makes you think the question is about Trump?

The fact that you are a MAGA talking head.

I never mentioned a president by name. It could be easily about Oba'a, or Clinton, or Bush 43, for example.

Is there a point to your prevarication?

But, I understand fixation, a Socialist ideal, of course.

I understand your deception, a Fascist ideal, of course.

"What makes you think the question is about Trump?" Oh Gee I don't know, I really don't know how anyone could make that extrapolation. My bad.

There are sufficient apparent gaps in extant constitutional language to allow a two-term presidential accession to the vice-presidency, even by election, but not so for a third presidential term. But the language of the 22A has a lack of specificity in the succession language such that a 2-term president may possibly be subsequently elected VP, then succeed the presidency by vacation of the presidential office by the elected president by any means to the VP, such as by appointment or VP-succession. In the latter case, there is no constitutional language that suggests in vacating of the presidential office, the VP is skipped in succession to award the presidential office to, for example, the Speaker of the House, which would be the normal succession if nether the presidential nor vice presidential offices are filled. Therefore, if such election to the vice presidency by a two-term-served president is possible, that languages needs to be clarified if such a result is not desired, and would need to do so by approval and ratification of a 28th amendment, as stipulated by Article V.

But, as I've already said, the possibility of Bill Clinton, Bush 43, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump, to be elected to a subsequent office of the VP is possible, by current constitutional language, all current two-term elected presidents, so it is not specific to Trump. See my reply just above, my #23 to Shorsey. It is possible, however unlikely, based on his Party's actions in '24, for Biden to run for a second term.

you are a MAGA talking head.

Your opinion, only, but not the case.

...your prevarication?

What prevarication? Is my #1 posing the original question somehow vague to you? Look up each word definition, then, if any are beyond you - there is no hidden agenda therein. Just a simple question that could potentially apply to, at present, 4 different men; two of each major Party; Bill Clinton, Bush 43, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. I think two of those men, and potentially three [the latter being Bush] would feel maligned being associated with MAGA.

you are a MAGA talking head.

Your opinion, only, but not the case.

...your prevarication?

What prevarication? Is my #1 posing the original question somehow vague to you? Look up each word definition, then, if any are beyond you - there is no hidden agenda therein. Just a simple question that could potentially apply to, at present, 4 different men; two of each major Party; Bill Clinton, Bush 43, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. I think two of those men, and potentially three [the latter being Bush] would feel maligned being associated with MAGA.

Second Carrot.

Does the Constitution limit the ability of a twice-before-elected President to serve as Vice-President?

The 22nd amendment is specific in certain respects but just vague enough where imaginary scenarios like this could be concocted and presented as reasonable work arounds.

So with regards to the very clear intent of the law, no, a twice elected President cannot serve as VP because the entire purpose of a VP is to be the back up President, thereby putting them in the position to take the very control sought to be avoided by the amendment in the first place.

But is it technically barred? No. So as usual with Trump, we now have to sit here and debate whether the technical definitions of words on a piece of paper matter more than the very clear intention of why those words were written in the first place.

This is what an assault on the rule of law looks like. What Trump supporters are either too stupid to understand or just don’t give a shit about is that laws are nothing but words on a piece of paper, what makes the rule of law an actual thing is us as a society deciding that they matter. Trumps entire MO is about finding ways to delegitimize every idea conveyed by those words so that he can do whatever he wants, the exact opposite of why we have laws at all.

We have never before seen a president who was a greater threat to the rule of law before.

I have never seen such an effort by the judicial system in all my life try so hard and repeatedly to try and take down a sitting President.

Because we’ve never before had a president so egregiously commit such serious and obvious crimes.