By Matt Underwood Trump Told by Alan Dershowitz Constitutionality of Third Term Is Unclear. So, the whole thing boils down to whether Donald Trump could legally run for a third term, right? And apparently, Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer, has been throwing some uncertainty into the mix. This is interesting, to say the least. It’s tough to wrap your head around how the idea of a third term could be even slightly ambiguous, especially when you look at the 22nd Amendment. I mean, it’s pretty straightforward, right? No one can be elected president more than twice.
The conversation naturally shifts to the specific details of the situation. Some are pointing out how clear the constitutional amendment actually is. There’s really not much room for interpretation. And then there’s the added context of Alan Dershowitz himself. It’s hard to ignore the controversies surrounding him. It makes it even harder to see him as an objective legal voice on the matter.
Then there is the sheer absurdity of the proposed workaround. Some are speculating that Trump could become Speaker of the House, and then the President and VP could resign, allowing him to bypass the “elected twice” rule. It’s hard to imagine something less democratic.
Of course, the immediate reaction is that the whole idea is utter nonsense. There’s a palpable sense of frustration, even anger, at the thought of Trump attempting to circumvent the Constitution in this way. The idea of the Supreme Court being involved adds another layer of complexity. The feeling is that the whole thing is not a debate, it’s settled law, and it’s a matter of basic civics.
There’s also a clear recognition of the historical context. The 22nd Amendment itself was a direct response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms. The irony of Republicans now potentially trying to ignore it is not lost on anyone. And it drives home the point that the rules are being bent to fit a specific outcome.
The conversation is not limited to mere legal arguments. There’s a visceral, emotional reaction to this whole scenario. Many are expressing a firm refusal to accept a third term under any circumstances. There’s a willingness to go to great lengths to prevent it, which reflects the high stakes and the potential threat to the foundation of democracy.
Then there is that specific exception: the scenario where the Vice President can serve more than two terms. This underscores the rigidity of the two-term limit, and how it is only explicitly circumvented in extremely specific cases.
Furthermore, we cannot ignore the possibility of Trump’s legal team playing word games. They could come up with some kind of advisory role, allowing him to stay in the Oval Office and continue to influence the government. This is where the whole thing becomes less of a legal question and more of a practical one. It’s about power and how people can try to maintain it.
The question of Alan Dershowitz’s role is also brought up. Given his history, the idea that he might be providing Trump with some creative legal advice is not a far leap. The conversation raises questions about ethical boundaries, especially when it comes to lawyers advising their clients.
It’s clear that the 22nd Amendment is a firmly established part of the U.S. Constitution. It is hard to find any real legal arguments for why Trump should be allowed a third term. The only argument would be based on Trump’s apparent disregard for laws and the Constitution.
The whole thing highlights the lengths that Trump is willing to go to stay in power. It also demonstrates how supporters would ignore the law. Some believe that the only thing that would stop Trump is if he were no longer living.
The conversation ultimately ends with a plea for the law to be upheld, and Trump to be forced to concede and leave office. It’s a sentiment born of frustration and a deep desire to preserve the integrity of the American democratic system.