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

Did I mention a president by name?

Why are you pretending we’re not having this conversation solely because of Trump? Has any other living president ever talked about serving a third term? Has there ever been a movement since the 22nd amendment to going a loophole around it other than for Trump?

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.

Systems are only as good as the people running them. American democracy was secure while it was being run by adults, what Trump exposed is that there were a lot more morons among us than we first thought. His superpower was the ability to appeal to the people just as stupid and ignorant as he is, and once that happens institutional guardrails mean nothing, they’re just really big words “nobody ever heard of”.

.."The most important pillar of Project 2025 has always been about personnel, not policy. Or rather, the whole effort is animated by the Reagan-era maxim that personnel is policy, that power flows from having the right people in the right jobs. To that end, the plan’s most pertinent proposal is reinstating Schedule F — a provision unveiled near the very end of Trump’s term, then repealed by the Biden administration — which would shift as many as 50,000 career employees in policy-shaping positions into a new job category that would make them much easier to fire."..

https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/09/03/the-man-behind-project-2025s-most-radical-plans/

.." According to one person in attendance, the database would take several months to build and would cost upward of $2 million. It would reach outside the usual channels to draw in MAGA believers from across the country. And Dans was at the helm. “There was no one who had a better idea of it than he did,” the person in attendance told me. “He was driving the whole thing.”..

Bucky Fuller makes clear in his book writings, that, Pharoahs and others like that of great power, always have these hidden ' behind the scenes ' wizards pulling the strings of power.

Project 2025 > Trump > firings of those in government not ultra-conservative 2025 mental state >

> those who quit in face of immoral onslaught of fascist etc MAGA attitudes, that,

> is expressed by building a ball room on end of white house and,

> less considerations of a humble approach that invokes science based care for humans and ecology that sustains them.

...Too many people for operating systems we have in place ergo polluting of ourselves and the ecology

.. more support for ultra-conservative dictator types

... less support for science ergo a greater chance for spread of disease

... more support for false narrative over truth, etc

Project 2028 >

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.

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.

Sorry to make one of your posts relevant, I know you think it’s clever to keep your posts inane and impertinent, and I understand your fixation, suppressing freedom of speech is a Fascist/Authoritarian ideal, of course.

Unfortunately, because your man Trump hasn’t completely overturned the first amendment yet, you don’t get to control the thoughts and speech of others, consequently, we can always introduce substance into the conversation even when your post is pointless.

I’m sorry if that confuses you, but when informed people respond to a post they tend to be presumptuous enough to direct the conversation into the relevant context. By informed, in this case, I mean people who don’t live under a rock and therefore are aware that Donald Trump is declaring he could run again and it is currently a primary subject the national discussion.

You can go ahead and declare we are wrong to have a discussion of substance about relevant events currently dominating the news cycle, and that allows you to call people names, and I suppose that is some kind of puerile “win” in your psychodrama, go for it, because nobody cares about the petty things that float your childish boat.

Donald Trump has apparently, kind of, grudgingly accepted that he will not be able to seek an unconstitutional third term in the White House.

We have never before...

Been around that long, to experience all 47 presidents? Congrats.

Why are you pretending

Nope, I've identified 4 living 2-term presidents who are eligible to the conditions my original question poses.

That's you, Dbl, who impersonates pretending one man fills the bill. The original sin is to limit the scope of open questions.

The debate is over.

Donald Trump has apparently, kind of, grudgingly accepted that he will not be able to seek an unconstitutional third term in the White House.

Thanks for explaining why your Democracy is so weak.

The debate is over.

Donald Trump has apparently, kind of, grudgingly accepted that he will not be able to seek an unconstitutional third term in the White House.

He admitted he can't run for election, but he's not that into elections anyway, Insurrection is more his style.

I have no confidence he’ll leave willingly, nothing he has ever shown us says he’s capable of that.

My bet is that he’ll declare some kind of emergency “until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on”, which will take just as long as it did the last time.

Nope, I've identified 4 living 2-term presidents who are eligible to the conditions my original question poses.

Oh right… this is was just some generic abstract conversation that popped up out of no where and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the current president of the United States selling Trump 2028 hats.

Your stupidity and unseriousness here is yet another example of how perfectly you align with MAGA.

I never made Trump the featured president of my original post on this subject. Others did that, like Dble-R and Sidewalk, so tell them.

You may believe I am stupid all you wish if that floats your boat. But personal attack is always the losing argument, my friend, for it demonstrates lack of any meaningful argument.

You may believe I am stupid all you wish if that floats your boat. But personal attack is always the losing argument, my friend, for it demonstrates lack of any meaningful argument.

Get over your MAGA based house of ultra-conservative cards and just post more hieroglyphics to prove to others how smart you are.

Oh great Ra, speak to us of ...> MAGA's return to testing of nuclear weapons,

..> speaks to us of violating prior agreements with Mexico on issues in international waters,

..> speak to us of pardoning jan 6th insurrecctionists,

...> speak to us of Project 2025's true desires for USA. Ex

AI... " Restore the family: The agenda aims to recenter American society on what it describes as traditional family values, guided by Christian conservative principles.

Dismantle the administrative state: It proposes bringing the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies like the Department of Justice, under direct presidential control, a concept based on the "unitary executive theory". It also seeks to eliminate job protections for thousands of career civil servants.

Defend national sovereignty and borders: The plan advocates for aggressive action against China and increased border security, including mass deportations.

Secure God-given individual rights: The project interprets individual rights through a conservative lens "..

I never made Trump the featured president of my original post on this subject. Others did that

And if you took note, I responded to your original post without invoking Trump.

What I started responding to afterward was your silly denial of the fact that this subject is only meaningful and only relevant because the current president of the United States continues to flirt with the idea of a third term despite it being constitutionally barred. So you can decide that you want to have a conversation focused purely on the abstract notion of how a president could hypothetically get around this, but don’t sit here and pretend this topic applies to Obama or Bush just as easily as it does to Trump.

You may believe I am stupid all you wish if that floats your boat. But personal attack is always the losing argument

I wasn’t suggesting that you were stupid, I was calling your argument stupid as a way to show why it is so clearly disingenuous.

 I was calling your argument stupid as a way to show why it is so clearly disingenuous.

Then you are using the word wrong. Stupid refers to mental ability, and non-sentient objects like "arguments" can never be described with that word. In fact, a stupid person would likely attempt to do that and believe it's correct.

A "stupid person" is 

someone who lacks intelligence or reason, often making poor decisions and struggling to learn or adapt. This can manifest as a lack of common sense, a resistance to new ideas, or an inability to correct mistakes. While the term is often used as an insult, many thinkers and philosophers see a willingness to learn and change as more important than raw intelligence. 

This is an example of a non-sequitur

I defined what a stupid person is.

A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term, while a non-sequitur is a logical fallacy where a conclusion does not logically follow from preceding statements

. Therefore, a definition is not a non-sequitur because its purpose is to provide a clear and logical explanation, whereas a non-sequitur is, by its nature, a gap in logic or an irrelevant statement. 

...it is it technically barred? No. So as usual with Trump, we now have to sit here and...

Direct quote from your first post in this string, #29. Seems I did take note, and you do "invoke Trump."

Your stupidity and unseriousness here is yet another example of how perfectly you align with MAGA. [your #42]

I wasn’t suggesting that you were stupid, I was calling your argument stupid... [your #46]

Anyone reading your #42 with a modicum of English grammar skill is going to interpret your 42 as directed to me, not to my argument, since you do not mention my "argument" in that sentence, nor in the entire post, but mention me specifically twice just in that sentence.

Direct quote from your first post in this string, #29. Seems I did take note, and you do "invoke Trump."

I can see I needed to be more specific.

What I said is that I responded without invoking Trump - as in I directly addressed your question in the abstract exactly as you apparently wanted.

*Afterwards*, I responded with your posts 14, 15, & 16 in mind where you started to pretend like this thread had nothing to do with Trump. Then your first post to me (#36) you ignored every point I made and proceeded to focus on whether this thread is about Trump, which goes to show how disingenuous all of this was. If you really wanted to have the abstract conversation maybe you would have focused on that.

Anyone reading your #42 with a modicum of English grammar skill is going to interpret your 42 as directed to me, not to my argument

No, all they would need is to understand the definition of “here”.

Your stupidity and unseriousness here is yet another example…

That is a direct reference to what you’ve been arguing in this thread.

"here" can also be interpreted as this site, and not just the thread. No, you should have stuck, and stopped with your first line of #52:

I can see I needed to be more specific.

Amen.

Could Trump run as vice president in 2028, bypass the U.S. Constitution and become president a third time? For Jeremy Paul, a Northeastern legal ..

By the texts oft three documents within the current Constitution [Article II, 12A, & 22A]:

Article II does not speak to a limit of 4-year terms an elected president may serve.

12A does not speak to a limit of 4-year terms an elected president may serve.

22A: an elected president may not serve more than 2 four-year terms, however, there is no prohibition of a president who has served two 4-year terms to run for election as vice president, nor, as an elected vice president, succeed the presidential office by incapacity of the president by death, temp or permanent disability or removal from office by impeachment/conviction. Further, should a presidential election not give a majority E.C. vote to a pres candidate, and the election goes to the House [per 12A, clause 1], and a House member vote does not elect a president, the current vice ores shall be the president, and the v.p candidate receiving the most votes shall be the VP. Then, if the President, by death, disability, or removal vacates the presidency, as before, the VP shall be the President.

Bottom line, B. Clonton, Bush 43, Obama, or Trump are eligible to run as a VP candidate in 28, and potentially win election.