President Donald Trump has made a move on whether he might try to resign after his current term ends. He often says others want him to do so, and the Trump Organization is selling the Trump 2028 hat. In March, he said he was not "joking" when he mentioned a possible third semester. Recently, he said the third term was “as far as I know, you are not allowed to do so” but then immediately questioned the constitutionality that prevented the re-run. When the Constitution stipulates how he will appoint how he will appoint a third term under a rule that opposes elected more than twice, he said: "There are some ways."
In short, Trump realized that if he wanted to appoint a third term, the Constitution, and especially the Twenty-Two Amendments, was a problem. But he did not rule out this possibility. The problem can be solved. Note how he solves this problem: For the President, the Constitution is not a repository of values that he must respect. It is the obstacle to overcome when it hinders his interests.
When Trump said, “There are some ways to do it,” he thought of the job of “the vice president” as he called it. The idea is this: The Twenty Second Amendment says: "No one will be elected as the President's Office more than twice." Strictly interpreted that the ban is Selectednot in the office. So if Trump can yes President after 2028 Selected President - For example, if he is elected vice The president, then the person elected at the top of his ticket resigned, thus making Trump the president, and then he would not violate the ban. After all, he won't Selected “Go to the president’s office more than twice.”
Whether this work is legally effective is the subject of some controversy among constitutional experts. Strictly speaking, this makes sense. At the same time, this is a clear invalidity for the purpose of the amendment. No one knows how the Supreme Court will resolve this tension three years from now.
But if the question of how the courts evaluate such work is vague, then Trump’s willingness to promote the idea will be greatly inspired. This reflects his feeling that his interest in power is online, and that the Constitution is something to escape.
Often, the dispute over how to interpret a constitutional provision is at the bottom of the dispute about what the provision is trying to achieve. When the court's arguments on plain text of the plaintiff regarding the defendant's argument on the purpose of the clause, it is usually because the mismatch between the text and the defendant's mismatch to the purpose leads the court to doubt whether the defendant correctly described the purpose of the clause. Maybe the clause is trying to do what you meanthe court said secretly, However, if that's what the clause is about to do, the wording may vary. And, since we are not sure about the purpose of this clause, the safest course is to stick to plain text.
In the case of the Twenty Second Amendment, no similar situation applies. Everyone knows that the purpose of the provision is to limit the time anyone can serve as president. This purpose is so clear and so wise that most Americans simply believe that the Constitution imposes two restrictions, not two election restrictions. Everyone, including Trump, knows that two presidents who become president again will overturn the Twenty-Two Amendments, whether he enters the office through "elect" or not. The difference between Trump and the other two presidents is that if he can find a way, he seems happy to subvert the purpose of the amendment. He is not trying to respect the Constitution. He tried to surpass it.
For certain roles in the legal system, trying to go beyond the law is normal. Private tax attorneys try to find clever ways to minimize client taxes, including following rules where possible. Indeed, these rules are understood that those under their jurisdiction will attempt to play the game in this way. But the president should not treat the constitution like a private lawyer who treats the tax law, that is, it is a defeated unfavorable force. Indeed, if literally, the reason for the Twenty Second Amendment is that its drafters are reluctant to write it in an airtight manner because they believe that future presidents will take the Constitution sincerely - they will understand and respect the Twenty Second Amendment's view. Trump must understand the purpose of the amendment, but he does not respect the amendment's obligations. If he could stop it from standing in his way, he would.
This constitutional approach is typical for Trump. During his first semester, when he benefited from foreign diplomats living in hotels, the Public Interest Watchdog believed that Trump violated the Emer Timber Terms, which prohibited federal officials from accepting “any current king, king, prince, prince or foreign state or foreign king.” The explicit purpose of this clause is to prevent foreign governments from bribing U.S. officials and to prevent U.S. officials from using their offices as a personal enrichment tool by using the same mark. Trump refused to stop this practice, and his administration claimed he did not violate the constitution because he technically got the money he did not understand the term in the 18th century Americans, which was not technically "Scotland".
Whether this argument is correct is correct for the meaning of the 18th century emulument It is controversial. But the logic here is the same: The Trump administration chose to defend obvious corrupt practices on the grounds that it was not technically banned. Any former president will be a hundred miles away from the appearance of this misconduct, because everyone knows that the president should not work together with foreign government money. However, Trump believes that if there is a method available that can be said to be no ban on corruption, it is obviously not important that the fact that corruption is clearly corruption. He did not treat the constitution's anti-corruption clause (in the language of "any field of any kind..." because he thought whether federal officials should accept foreign payments, but rather clearly stated the technical points and continued to take the money.
More than a century ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. illuminated what legal theorists call "bad guy" legal theory. The bad guy didn't want to know what his obligation was, Holmes wrote. He just wants to know what would happen if he was involved in a given course of action. If an action does not have adverse consequences for him (if he can get rid of it), then there is no reason the law does not do so, even if someone with a different legal sense thinks that action is illegal.
President Trump's attitude toward the Twenty Second Amendment is a classic case of the bad guys of Sherlock Holmes. Indeed, the construction of bad guys captures Trump’s attitude toward the law. Instead of viewing the law as a repository of the value that officials should realize, the president sees it as a series of obstacles to address in the pursuit of interests. If his goals conflict with legal projects (for example, because laws all embody the idea that the president should not use his office to make profits, or no one should occupy the White House long enough to risk sliding the system into individualistic strongman authoritarianism - he will ignore the legal projects and pursue his goals as if he could stay away from it.