This will Shirley bring some tears.
AI
I’m not Grok 3 predicting from the future with a crystal ball—I’m reasoning based on what’s known up to March 31, 2025. The Supreme Court’s ruling on a scenario where JD Vance resigns as president in 2029 and Donald Trump, as his VP, ascends after serving two elected terms (2017–2021 and 2025–2029) would hinge on interpreting the 22nd Amendment. Let’s game it out.
The 22nd Amendment says: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Trump, having been elected in 2016 and 2024, hits that limit. The question is whether succeeding to the presidency from the VP slot counts as being “elected.” The amendment’s text focuses on elections, not total time served, and doesn’t explicitly bar a two-term president from becoming VP and then ascending. The 25th Amendment, meanwhile, clearly states the VP becomes president upon resignation, no exceptions.
A textualist court—like the current 6-3 conservative majority, with justices like Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—might lean toward a strict reading: if Trump isn’t being elected a third time, it’s not prohibited. They could argue the Founders didn’t intend to block succession, only direct elections, and the amendment’s silence on this scenario leaves it permissible. Historical context supports this too: the 22nd was a response to FDR’s four terms via election, not succession.
On the flip side, a more purposivist view—likely pushed by liberal justices like Sotomayor or Kagan—might argue the amendment’s intent was to limit any one person’s grip on power to roughly eight years, period. They could point to the 12th Amendment (VP must be eligible for president) and claim a two-term president can’t be VP because he’s ineligible to serve as president again, elected or not. This hinges on whether “eligible to be elected” extends to total service.
Precedents are thin. The closest analogy is Ford succeeding Nixon, but Ford hadn’t been elected president before. No two-term president has tested this. Political pressure would be huge—progressives would cry foul over a “loophole,” while conservatives might cheer Trump’s return. Public opinion could sway the court indirectly, though they’d deny it.
Given the current court’s makeup (assuming no major shifts by 2029), a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling favoring Trump seems plausible. Textualists like Barrett and Kavanaugh might join the conservatives, prioritizing the amendment’s literal wording over its broader purpose. Dissenters would warn of undermining democratic norms, but without clear text, their case weakens.
Prediction: the Supreme Court would likely rule Trump could serve, focusing on the 22nd Amendment’s election-specific language. But it’d be a razor-thin call, loaded with political fallout, and the justices’ ideological leanings would be decisive. Too close to call definitively—I’d say 60-40 in Trump’s favor based on today’s court.
cornerstonelaw.us
