Trump won't rule out seeking a third term in the White House, tells NBC News 'there are methods' for doing so

[Self Esteem]

31. There are only two realistic options and both are unlikely.

The first is the option floated in the article: run as Vance's running mate, Vance resigns and he assumes the presidency. This is probably the most realistic only because the language in the Constitution leads an opening. In the 22nd Amendment, it stipulates: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice....

The term elected is important because in this scenario, Trump technically isn't being elected to the office of President, but rather the office of Vice President. It's definitely exploiting the language of the amendment but I wouldn't trust the Supreme Court to uphold the intent of it.

But Ford was an unelected president.

Its relationship with the 12th Amendment, which defines who is constitutionally eligible for the office, would surely be where this battle would be fought in such scenario.

I'm not convinced the Court wouldn't rule in Trump's favor if that's the path he takes.

The other option is just running anyway and daring the courts to stop him. My guess is that the courts would rule he's ineligible but then what? It seems most Republicans will blindly support him. If the Court rules in early 2028 he's not eligible, the party can still make him their nominee. It then falls to the states to ban him from the ballot. I'm guessing every blue state will but what about Republican states or states with Republican legislatures? Will they vote to put him on the ballot and if there's enough for 270 electoral votes... what happens next?

The Courts can rule. Democrats can sue. Hell, Chief Justice Roberts could refuse the oath be given... it would throw the country into a legit constitutional crisis and Democrats couldn't even toss the electors of states that voted Trump without a majority in both the House and Senate (in order to toss electoral votes, during the certification, an objection must have both a signature of a House and Senate member before they debate and then vote as separate bodies and at that time, a majority must be reached in both chambers to toss the electoral votes) - or they'd have to hope for a good amount of cross-over votes but I'm not sure they could (and it's not a good bet that the Democrats have a majority in the Senate by January, 2029 but maybe).

Regardless, that last option is the messiest. So, I'm inclined to believe they'll aim for the first if they choose.

Of course, the cleanest is the most unlikely: just repeal the 22nd but the votes aren't there for that.