How a fictional Vice President Trump could become reality
A constitutional debate can be dry and arcane. So let's put this possibility into fictional terms, such as the movies 'Advise and Consent,' or even 'Seven Days in May.'
Assume, for fictional purposes, the main character has served two terms as president and will not give up power easily. A coup like the one in 'Seven Days in May' is not possible. So, the president brings together a legal team to present a plan that allows the president to run as vice president and circumvent these prohibitions.
The last sentence of the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, reads: 'But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.'
The 22nd Amendment, approved in 1951, states in part that: 'No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once.'
Can these two apparently conflicting amendments be resolved?
The president's lawyers show how he can run for vice president. The 12th Amendment applied the same requirements for the president to the vice president because that person could assume the presidency if it became vacant. They must be at least 35 years of age, native born, be a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and win a majority of the Electoral College.
The 22nd Amendment was passed 147 years later. Clearly, the two–term limit should not be applicable retroactively.
If the president left office before the end of the term, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is next in line, would assume the office. The president is disqualified by the 22nd Amendment.
The lawyers also lay out the opposite case that the 22nd Amendment takes precedence, meaning no president can serve more than two terms, in order to strategize how to beat this counterargument.
The answer should be obvious: Let the courts decide.
For purposes of this story, the president has appointed enough conservative Supreme Court associate judges to give himself an apparent 7-2 majority. Hence, as this case would go to the court, the president almost certainly would win. Of course, the consequences of this decision would be the equivalent of a political nuclear explosion.
In this movie, the lawyers would review the most contested and controversial elections, which took place in 1876 and 2000.
On Nov. 7, 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. Tilden led Hayes by more than 260,000 popular votes.
As the Electoral College met to determine the president, Tilden had 184 electoral votes, one less than needed to win the election. Hayes had only 165. However, 19 electoral votes were in doubt.
How was this constitutional stalemate resolved? With no supporting case for precedence, the U.S. Congress formed an Electoral Commission.
After considerable and heated debate, in early March 1877, the commission awarded the 20 contested electoral votes to Hayes. Thus, while losing the popular vote, Hayes won the election 185-184.
In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote over George W. Bush. But despite ongoing recounts in Florida, whose electoral votes would determine the winner, the Supreme Court ordered that the recount be halted. Bush was in the lead and was elected president.
The election of 2028 in this plot could make these two cases seem tame. Graphic riots and violence would be the likely outcome. But in 2000, the story rested in the Supreme Court, where one angry judge halted the proceedings, throwing the election into chaos.
Originally, presidents were inaugurated on March 20 because of slow-paced horse and carriage transportation. Inauguration Day in this era is Jan. 20.
Moving from fiction to reality and the possibility that Trump would actually seek the vice presidency, the lesson is clear for Democrats: Winning the House in 2028 is vital. But what a story the alternative brings!
Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are working on a forthcoming book.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Trump administration wants to end the UN peacekeeping in Lebanon. Europe is pushing back
WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon has split the United States and its European allies, raising implications for security in the Middle East and becoming the latest snag to vex relations between the U.S. and key partners like France, Britain and Italy. At issue is the peacekeeping operation known as UNIFIL, whose mandate expires at the end of August and will need to be renewed by the U.N. Security Council to continue. It was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel's 1978 invasion, and its mission was expanded following the monthlong 2006 war between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah. The multinational force has played a significant role in monitoring the security situation in southern Lebanon for decades, including during the Israel-Hezbollah war last year, but has drawn criticism from both sides and numerous U.S. lawmakers, some of whom now hold prominent roles in President Donald Trump's administration or wield new influence with the White House. Trump administration political appointees came into office this year with the aim of shutting down UNIFIL as soon as possible. They regard the operation as an ineffectual waste of money that is merely delaying the goal of eliminating Hezbollah's influence and restoring full security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces that the government says it is not yet capable of doing. After securing major cuts in U.S. funding to the peacekeeping force, Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed off early last week on a plan that would wind down and end UNIFIL in the next six months, according to Trump administration officials and congressional aides familiar with the discussions. It's another step as the Trump administration drastically pares back its foreign affairs priorities and budget, including expressing skepticism of international alliances and cutting funding to U.N. agencies and missions. The transatlantic divide also has been apparent on issues ranging from Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine conflict to trade, technology and free speech issues. Israel has for years sought an end to UNIFIL's mandate, and renewal votes have often come after weeks of political wrangling. Now, the stakes are particularly high after last year's war and more vigorous opposition in Washington. European nations, notably France and Italy, have objected to winding down UNIFIL. With the support of Tom Barrack, U.S. ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Lebanon, they successfully lobbied Rubio and others to support a one-year extension of the peacekeeping mandate followed by a time-certain wind-down period of six months, according to the administration officials and congressional aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. Israel also reluctantly agreed to an extension, they said. The European argument was that prematurely ending UNIFIL before the Lebanese army is able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum that Hezbollah could easily exploit. The French noted that when a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali was terminated before government troops were ready to deal with security threats, Islamic extremists moved in. With the U.S. easing off, the issue ahead of the U.N. vote expected at the end of August now appears to be resistance by France and others to setting a firm deadline for the operation to end after the one-year extension, according to the officials and congressional aides. French officials did not respond to requests for comment. The final French draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, does not include a date for UNIFIL's withdrawal, which U.S. officials say is required for their support. Instead, it would extend the peacekeeping mission for one year and indicates the U.N. Security Council's 'intention to work on a withdrawal.' But even if the mandate is renewed, the peacekeeping mission might be scaled down for financial reasons, with the U.N. system likely facing drastic budget cuts, said a U.N. official, who was not authorized to comment to the media and spoke on condition of anonymity. One of the U.S. officials said an option being considered was reducing UNIFIL's numbers while boosting its technological means to monitor the situation on the ground. The peacekeeping force has faced criticism There are about 10,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese army has around 6,000 soldiers, a number that is supposed to increase to 10,000. Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon have frequently accused the U.N. mission of collusion with Israel and sometimes attacked peacekeepers on patrol. Israel, meanwhile, has accused the peacekeepers of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's military activities in southern Lebanon and lobbied for its mandate to end. Sarit Zehavi, a former Israeli military intelligence analyst and founder of the Israeli think tank Alma Research and Education Center, said UNIFIL has played a 'damaging role with regard to the mission of disarming Hezbollah in south Lebanon.' She pointed to the discovery of Hezbollah tunnels and weapons caches close to UNIFIL facilities during and after last year's Israel-Hezbollah war, when much of the militant group's senior leadership was killed and much of its arsenal destroyed. Hezbollah is now under increasing pressure to give up the rest of its weapons. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL continues to discover unauthorized weapons, including rocket launchers, mortar rounds and bomb fuses, this week, which it reported to the Lebanese army. Under the U.S.- and France-brokered ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah were to withdraw from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese army taking control in conjunction with UNIFIL. Israel has continued to occupy five strategic points on the Lebanese side and carry out near-daily airstrikes that it says aim to stop Hezbollah from regrouping. Lebanon supports keeping UN peacekeepers Lebanese officials have called for UNIFIL to remain, saying the country's cash-strapped and overstretched army is not yet able to patrol the full area on its own until it. Retired Lebanese Army Gen. Khalil Helou said that if UNIFIL's mandate were to abruptly end, soldiers would need to be pulled away from the porous border with Syria, where smuggling is rife, or from other areas inside of Lebanon — 'and this could have consequences for the stability' of the country. UNIFIL 'is maybe not fulfilling 100% what the Western powers or Israel desire. But for Lebanon, their presence is important,' he said. The United Nations also calls the peacekeepers critical to regional stability, Dujarric said. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said deciding on the renewal of the mandate is the prerogative of the U.N. Security Council. 'We are here to assist the parties in implementation of the mission's mandate and we're waiting for the final decision,' he said.
Washington Post
17 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump runs into the difficulty of Putin diplomacy and ending a long war
NEW YORK — President Donald Trump walked into a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin pressing for a ceasefire deal and threatening 'severe consequences' and tough new sanctions if the Kremlin leader failed to agree to halt the fighting in Ukraine. Instead, Trump was the one who stood down, dropping his demand for a ceasefire in favor of pursuing a full peace accord — a position that aligns with Putin's .
Associated Press
17 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump runs into the difficulty of Putin diplomacy and ending a long war
NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump walked into a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin pressing for a ceasefire deal and threatening 'severe consequences' and tough new sanctions if the Kremlin leader failed to agree to halt the fighting in Ukraine. Instead, Trump was the one who stood down, dropping his demand for a ceasefire in favor of pursuing a full peace accord — a position that aligns with Putin's. After calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump wrote as he flew home from Friday's meeting in Alaska that it had been 'determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' It was a dramatic reversal that laid bare the challenges of dealing with Putin, a cunning adversary, as well as the complexities of a conflict that Trump had repeatedly boasted during his campaign that he could solve within 24 hours. Trump's position after the summit with Putin Few details have emerged about what the two leaders discussed or what constituted the progress they both touted. The White House did not respond to messages seeking comment Saturday. While European leaders were relieved that Trump did not agree to a deal that ceded territory or otherwise favored Moscow, the summit allowed Putin to reclaim his place on the world stage and may have bought Russia more time to push forward with its offensive in Ukraine. 'We're back to where we were before without him having gone to Alaska,' said Fiona Hill, who served as Trump's senior adviser on Russia at the National Security Council during his first term, including when he last met Putin in Helsinki in 2018. In an interview, Hill argued that Trump had emerged from the meeting in a weaker position on the world stage because of his reversal. Other leaders, she said, might now look at the U.S. president and think he's 'not the big guy that he thinks he is and certainly not the dealmaking genius.' 'All the way along, Trump was convinced he has incredible forces of persuasion,' she said, but he came out of the meeting without a ceasefire — the 'one thing' he had been pushing for, even after he gave the Russian leader the 'red carpet treatment.' Trump has 'run up against a rock in the form of Putin, who doesn't want anything from him apart from Ukraine,' she said. Democrats call for consequences for Putin At home, Democrats expressed alarm at what at times seemed like a day of deference, with Trump clapping for Putin as he walked down a red carpet during an elaborate ceremony welcoming him to U.S. soil for the first time in a decade. The two rode together in the presidential limousine and exchanged compliments. Trump seemed to revel in particular in Putin echoing his oft-repeated assertion that Russia never would have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been in office instead of Democrat Joe Biden at the time. Before news cameras, Trump did not use the opportunity to castigate Putin for launching the largest ground invasion in Europe since World War II or human rights abuses he's been accused of committing. Instead, Putin was the one who spoke first, and invited Trump to join him in Moscow next. 'President Trump appears to have been played yet again by Vladimir Putin,' said Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'The President rolled out a red carpet and warmly greeted a murderous dictator on American soil and reports indicate he got nothing concrete in return.' 'Enough is enough,' she went on. 'If President Trump won't act, Congress must do so decisively by passing crushing sanctions when we return in the coming weeks.' Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he supports diplomacy but 'peacemaking must be done responsibly.' 'Instead of caving to Putin, the U.S. should join our allies in levying tough, targeted new sanctions on Russia to intensify the economic pressure,' he said. Trump has touted himself as the president of peace Trump has tried to cast himself as a peacemaker, taking credit for helping deescalate conflicts between India and Pakistan as well as Thailand and Cambodia. He proudly mediated a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and another between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan to end decades of fighting. Trump has set his eye on the Nobel Peace Prize, with numerous allies offering nominations. But Trump has struggled to made headway on the world's two most vexing conflicts: the Russia-Ukraine war and Israel's offensive in Gaza against Hamas. Republicans and Trump allies offer little response so far In Washington, the summit was met by little response from Trump's allies. Republican lawmakers who spoke out were largely reserved and generally called for continued talks and constructive actions from the Trump administration. 'President Trump brought Rwanda and the DRC to terms, India and Pakistan to terms, Armenia and Azerbaijan to terms. I believe in our President, and believe he will do what he always does — rise to the challenge,' Rep. Brian Mast, a Florida Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement to The Associated Press. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, wrote on social media after the summit that 'while the press conference offered few details about their meeting' she was 'cautiously optimistic about the signals that some level of progress was made.' Murkowski said it 'was also encouraging to hear both presidents reference future meetings' but that Ukraine 'must be part of any negotiated settlement and must freely agree to its terms.' Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and close Trump ally, offered that he was 'very proud' of Trump for having had the face-to-face meeting and was 'cautiously optimistic' that the war might end 'well before Christmas' if a trilateral meeting between Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin transpires. 'I have all the confidence in the world that Donald Trump will make it clear to Putin this war will never start again. If it does, you're going to pay a heavy price,' he said on Fox News. For some Trump allies, the very act of him meeting with Putin was success enough: conservative activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk called it 'a great thing.' Some see a Putin win and a Trump loss But in Europe, the summit was seen as a major diplomatic coup for Putin, who has been eager to emerge from geopolitical isolation. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia's Security Council, praised the summit as a breakthrough in restoring high-level dialogue between Moscow and Washington, describing the talks as 'calm, without ultimatums and threats.' Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt said the summit was 'a distinct win for Putin. He didn't yield an inch' but was also 'a distinct setback for Trump. No ceasefire in sight.' 'What the world sees is a weak and wobbling America,' Bildt posted on X. ___ Burrows reported from London. AP reporters Matt Brown in Washington and John Leicester in Paris contributed to this report.
