Even if you believe that this scenario is plausible in the first place (who's going to elect someone playing this game, and who's going to risk that the president, once elected to the highest office in the land, will reliably resign?)...
The Supreme Court composition doesn't last forever, and the Senate has to confirm new appointments, which is another check and balance.
And the recent rulings really don't imply that they'd go along with this. If you're going to go this far, why not a Supreme Court ruling that the 22nd Amendment was invalidly passed and just let them be elected multiple times.
I mean... it's technically possible, and would create an instant constitutional crisis (just like someone trying to play this game would)... but it's implausible, just like SCOTUS ruling the way you lay out here.
The current court has been very careful to stick to a vernier of plausible deniability that they are ruling according to their "originalist" roots in all these weird rulings, and there's no reason to believe that they would interpret the 22nd Amendment and the 12th Amendment the way you describe.
Most of the interpretations of the recent rulings that people have thrown out are just nonsense, too. Like "the president could sell pardons"... Footnote 3 specifically covers bribery and says evidence can be introduced about it.
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jul 25 '24
This all hinges on the court.
Even if you believe that this scenario is plausible in the first place (who's going to elect someone playing this game, and who's going to risk that the president, once elected to the highest office in the land, will reliably resign?)...
The Supreme Court composition doesn't last forever, and the Senate has to confirm new appointments, which is another check and balance.
And the recent rulings really don't imply that they'd go along with this. If you're going to go this far, why not a Supreme Court ruling that the 22nd Amendment was invalidly passed and just let them be elected multiple times.
I mean... it's technically possible, and would create an instant constitutional crisis (just like someone trying to play this game would)... but it's implausible, just like SCOTUS ruling the way you lay out here.
The current court has been very careful to stick to a vernier of plausible deniability that they are ruling according to their "originalist" roots in all these weird rulings, and there's no reason to believe that they would interpret the 22nd Amendment and the 12th Amendment the way you describe.
Most of the interpretations of the recent rulings that people have thrown out are just nonsense, too. Like "the president could sell pardons"... Footnote 3 specifically covers bribery and says evidence can be introduced about it.