4

This idea came to me from what Putin and Medvedev did back then in 2008-2009.

Can Donald Trump and JD Vance, for example, run in 2028, this time with Vance for president, and Trump for Vice President, after which:

  1. One month after swearing in, Vance voluntarily steps down, allowing Trump to become President without being elected as President.
  2. Trump then has to choose VP, and chooses Vance himself or somebody else.

Questions:

  1. Would that be technically legal?
  2. Would it be legal even if they openly state at rallies during election that Vance is a straw candidate whose only function will be to step down and clear the way for his VP Trump, and they intend to do this maneuver specifically to avoid the 22nd Amendment?
  3. Would it be legal for the President Vance to be re-hired as the VP of his VP Trump once he's stepped down?
Improve this question
2
  • The term-limits on US and Russian President are different - the US constitution allows a US president to only serve two terms in office where as the Russian constitution bars a President from serving more than two terms consecutively (this is why Putin switched with the PM in the third term as he had already been President for 2 consecutive terms, and was barred from being a President again in the 3rd term).
    – sfxedit
    Commented Nov 28 at 10:31
  • It should be noted that in Russia they swapped two times (forth and back). However, if you ask for a dynasty kind of thing, surely Trump's family members could run next time.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Nov 28 at 11:35

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
14

No.

Per the 12th Amendment, if you are ineligible to be President, you also can't be Vice President.

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

Improve this answer
10
  • 3
    I thought this question might have more to do with the 22nd making the individual ineligible to be elected president, but not ineligible to be president?
    – bharring
    Commented Nov 27 at 15:05
  • Thank you, that answers the question in that case, although what @bharring says might also make sense.
    – JabaTheHut
    Commented Nov 27 at 15:07
  • 6
    You're presenting this answer as a certainty, but it's actually highly contentious and there is plenty of legal opinion out there arguing both sides of the debate. Ultimately it's never been tested before and the answer will remain unknown until someone tries it, is challenged, and there is a court ruling.
    – JBentley
    Commented Nov 27 at 15:33
  • 3
    @phoog Well, when I googled it before posting my comment, the first result was a journal article by Dan T. Coenen, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Georgia, arguing that a 2 term president can become a VP.
    – JBentley
    Commented Nov 27 at 16:18
  • 2
    Well, but suppose Donald Trump was selected as the Speaker of the House; and then both whoever was president and whoever was vice president resigned. Wouldn't he then become president?
    – pigrammer
    Commented Nov 28 at 1:02
4

This particular end-run would not work. However, there are several other options:

  1. Vance runs for president with Donald Trump Jr. as vice president. Once they take office, Don Jr. resigns, Donald Trump is appointed vice president, Vance resigns, and Donald Trump takes office as president.

  2. Trump simply runs again in 2028, and SCOTUS rules that state secretaries of state don't have the authority to bar him from the ballot.

  3. Trump makes it known that he will kill any secretaries of state that bar him from the ballot. According to SCOTUS, he is immune to prosecution for such a threat.

  4. SCOTUS declares that the 22th amendment was improperly ratified.

Improve this answer
4
  • 2
    The accepted answer seems to rule out #1 as writen, since presumably a president who had been elected to 2 terms would be equally ineligible to be "appointed" vice president as they would be to run as.
    – user99478
    Commented Nov 28 at 1:47
  • There is a major difference between the ineligibility due to term limits and the discussion about the issues around Jan 6th. There isn’t any question that I am aware of that would put any question of Trump’s eligibility in 2028
    – Joe W
    Commented Nov 28 at 4:16
  • @JoeW Whether Trump's actions constitute "insurrection" is a legitimate question of debate. But the SCOTUS ruling that Trump was eligible to run in 2024 was not based on a finding that his actions didn't constitute insurrection. It was based on a finding that the 14th amendment isn't self-executing; that is, its restrictions on eligibility don't come into effect simply because the amendment was ratified, but rather require an act of Congress. SCOTUS could similarly declare the 22th amendment to not be self-executing.
    – Acccumulation
    Commented Nov 29 at 2:33
  • 1
    @Acccumulation and it was done that way to avoid the question. The amendments regarding term limits are different than the 14th
    – Joe W
    Commented Nov 29 at 19:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .