"it" = Professor Dershowitz's new book, "Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?"
Dershowitz's position on the subject: "It’s not clear."
December 18, 2025
"[Trump] found it interesting as an intellectual issue. Do I think he’s going to run for a third term? No, I don’t think he will run for a third term."
Said Alan Dershowitz, quoted in "Can Trump run for a third term? It’s unclear, says Harvard professorAlan Dershowitz spoke to the president about the constitution at the Oval Office this week and says Trump 'found it interesting as an intellectual issue'" (London Times).
Posts
69 comments:
Fight, Fight, FIGHT!!!
Clinton tried for three. Bush and Obama got three. Why not Trump?
It would be a boon for the failing chattering class.
I am still shocked that no Democrat tried to argue “okay, you got us. We cheated in 2020, and you actually won. But that means you can’t take office in 2024, as that’s your third election.” Cc, JSM
What are "intellectual issues"? I thought it politics.
I'd vote for President Asshole again for a third term just for the sheer consternation and rage it would induce in the Democrat Party. Fun times, fun times
Trump is not running for a third term. But he's going to keep everyone on their toes. Leverage.
An issue does not become an "intellectual issue" by virtue of "intellectuals" saying it is. Trump is certainly thinking politically and strategically.
I didn't vote in your survey because the wording is as biased as an NPR report.
The idea being alive keeps him from being a lame duck.
Much as I would love a reprise of her shellacking, if Kamala somehow steals the nomination again she's so terrible she'd lose to a well-dressed papaya.
That's quite a poll. "Which would you rather have crush your nuts? (A) a 50-lbs anvil or (B) a car dropped from a helicopter?"
What's a guy got to do to get a "(C) not a snowball's chance in hell that either choice is right" option?
What boatbuilder said.
"Trump won the presidency in 2016 and 2024, and continues to claim that he lost the 2020 election due to extensive voter fraud. Numerous inquiries have found no evidence of this."
"Earlier this month, Fulton County admitted that approximately 315,000 early votes from the 2020 election were illegally certified but were nonetheless still included in the final results of that election."
There's evidence. What there weren't were inquiries.
It is not clear because a challenge has never been brought. The extreme difficulty we have in timely prosecution of election fraud is part of the problem. Only yesterday, more than five years after the Fulton County Election team certified over 300,000 ballots that were illegally accepted without signatures did the plaintiff get an official admission that all those ballot tapes were missing the three required signatures.
But there is no relief. There is no setting it right. What if we DO have enough authenticated data to declare the entire 2020 election spoiled? We do have the goods on Dominion Voting machines now, and we know the key precincts that recorded enough vote changes all in huge blocks. It doesn't matter. There will be no reckoning, no do-over.
If we had courts unafraid to hear the truth maybe they could order a do-over. If Trump was denied his victory by fraud would not the best remedy be to allow him to serve that term? Maybe it would.
"It's not clear."
I’m more inclined to Scott Adams’ interpretation: He’s playing with the Dems’ minds.
Poll needs a third option; "Trump is just stirring up shit with the Democrats".
@boatbuilder, + 1
The lack of a “neither of the above” option shows Althouse awash in a mix of gullibility and TDS.
Remember a few months ago when everyone was suddenly an expert on birthright citizenship? Remember when almost every Media outlet lied and said the Supreme Court had already addressed that issue?
Maybe this issue, as crazy at as it sounds, has been similarly presented by the DNC Media in a way that obscures rather than illuminates the actual facts at issue.
The Dems are pussies, and Trump has a laser pointer.
Mike (MJB Wolf)-
You're right, there is no settling of accounts for 2020, no making whole.
That's OK.
The way things worked out, this is like being a person who reserved a window seat on a flight, only to find that some jerk sat in your seat and refuses to move. Not wanting to cause a scene, you grudgingly take the window seat. During the flight, the window blows out and the jerk is sucked out of the plane.
You still want Boeing to redesign the window, but you are secretly glad that the late jerk was a jerk.
I'm doing fine here in the closing weeks of 2025. How 'bout you?
So, an intellectual exercise with benefits. The forth (sic) dimension.
Wait a minute… who takes the window seat?
...if he thinks he can get away with it.
I want to answer yes... but I have to admit to a bit of Trump sycophancy. So far, that is proving to be too much for the Althouse inteligencia.
The Democrats carve pussies... front holes while Dreaming of Herr Mengele in transition or simulation, while standing on the third leg of the liberal triad, that is the question.
That guy should’ve grudgingly taken the aisle seat, not the window seat.
He screwed himself.
One problem with the "we're better off with Trump winning in 2024 rather than 2020" is the 10 million illegal aliens Biden let into the country.
Make that 10 million problems.
First of all, before we all get carried away to fantasy land. Is Trump fit, health wise, enough to run again?
Two more years of campaigning? I don't think he could handle it.
>10,000,000
Trump is interested in a third term as negotiating leverage. He probably doesn’t even know how he’ll use it yet.
This strikes me as more of a Dershowitz self-promotion than anything else.
Trump needs a third term like a gyroscopically stabilized biped needs a third leg.
"[Trump] found it interesting as an intellectual issue. Do I think he’s going to run for a third term? No, I don’t think he will run for a third term."
If Trump ran he would lose in the primary to someone who said they would actually do what Trump promised to do.
The man presents hypotheticals all the time. The pretense that he doesn't think deeply is the usual Democrat BS. He doesn't think in jargon or euphemism, that much is true - but contrary to the opinion of the "intelligentsia," jargon and euphemism are not markers of intelligence - only of training. Indoctrination, when we're talking about the social sciences.
I'm digging it West TX!
Demonstrably dumb people are the ones who routinely assert Trump's stupidity. Yet the man has been elected to the presidency multiple times. And the great minds who make the assertions show up in social media with sombreros on their heads.
“If Trump ran he would lose in the primary to someone who said they would actually do what Trump promised to do.”
In other words, Trump would be reelected in a landslide.
Neither of the above. Trump loves to play with the media. He is a master of manipulating people who think they are a lot smarter than they actually are. Which is a perfect description of the media.
DT doesn't like being a lame duck. So he tries to stir the pot.
I would say that Trump likes the idea for emotional, rather than intellectual reasons. It appeals to his vanity, but he's almost 80 now and would be well into his 80s by 2032, so he knows better than to try to run again.
Perhaps Dershowitz's comment says more about Dershowitz and professors in general: it's hard for academics to separate intellectual interest from emotional attachment to ideas. The idea that one thinks most grounded and true may just be the one that one is in love with for other reasons.
Trump is in an unusual situation since his two terms were not consecutive.
Presidents in their second term usually acquire lame duck status after the midterms. Trump is trying to avoid that.
In a sense, he is stirring the pot because ehe cannot help himself. In this case, it seems like good idea.
Let's see how many buy the book. More than Nuzzi's?
Trump just loves to poke the hornets nest.
I like Donald, but I just don't see him finding something "...interesting as an intellectual issue." To fuck with people, yes. As a thought experiment, no.
Meade said...
“If Trump ran he would lose in the primary to someone who said they would actually do what Trump promised to do.”
In other words, Trump would be reelected in a landslide.
Are you saying the ideas Trump ran on would win or that people want to be lied to by someone like Trump?
"To fuck with people, yes."
Of course. And the left never learns.
If it drives leftist cultists up a the insane wall of spasmatic insanity?
I'm unsure, too.
"The Dems are pussies, and Trump has a laser pointer."
hahahaha -
The more interesting question is how many Trump loyalists would go along if Trump decided to try to run for a third term. Would they exercise their own judgment about what the constitution says or just do whatever Dear Leader wants?
How do you get a 'book' out of that question?
Achilles looks like Charlie Brown with Trump as Lucy holding the football.
Not gloating. I'm disappointed too
We learned in 2020 that a lot of Constitutional pre- and pro-scriptions are unenforceable. Standing/laches/mootness and all that.
So if a previous two-termer made it all the way through a third election, and had enough Congressional backing for certification (and didn't the Dems pass a statute that basically forces Congress to certify?), who has standing to complain? Would SCOTUS treat it as an unjusticiable political question?
Even in the early stages of primaries: the courts decided that Amd XIV is unenforceable in terms of states keeping seditionists off ballots. I would imagine they would say the same about Amd XX.
I wonder if Dersh makes any of these arguments. CC, JSM
Another option. Trump is trolling. As usual.
What does the constitution say, Douglas?
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, is the relevant part it seems to me.
I see no prohibition on serving a 3rd, 4th 5th etc term. Do you? If you do, can you quote the language in the constitution, please.
If he were appointed VP, would there be any bar? If the president resigned, the VP becomes prez, but is not "elected" in any sense of the word.
The newly appointed President Trump could then name Vance VP.
John Henry
Nobody who wins the Presidency is going to step aside to enable such a scheme.
"It's not clear."
What a hack.
Brought to you by the people who don't know what a person is, and they don't know what a jury is, and they don't know what free speech is.
It would be nice if our lawyer class would quit lying.
There is no entry to the 3rd term for president through the VP role. The only thing under debate but would be in court and INTENT of the clause would also disallow 3rd term. These are the the facts and laws.
The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment explicitly states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” That bars a third election victory, but it does not directly forbid serving again through succession. However, the 12th Amendment adds that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President.” Together, these provisions mean a twice-elected president cannot become vice president and then succeed to the presidency. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE the only debatable clause and in courts and that would be denied by INTENT of the amendment. Trump will be lucky to make it though this term he is too old and senile and ill.
The board voted to put Trump at the front of the name of the Kennedy Center. I guess it sees him not around for another term.
Original Mike,
I agree. It would be hard to get any president to voluntarily step aside. My only point was that there seems to be no bar to it in the constitution.
John Henry
Dinky,
You seem to agree that 22A only prevents re-election, not necessarily succession.
Then you cite 12A. But a VP Trump would not be inelegible to be president. You seem to concede that. He would only be inelegible to be elected president, not to serve.
John Henry
Much as I like Vance as VP, I really, really, really hope he does not run. Our 200 year history of VPs running for prez is pretty bad. Our nearly 200 year history of VPs actually serving as prez has been almost uniformly horrible.
The only former VPs viewed as successful is Coolidge and he had a LOT of executive experience. (Governor, lt gov, mayor)
TR, also had executive experience (Gov, police commissioner, Sec Navy, rancher)
If Trump became prez from the vice presidency, he would be another exception. And if Vance ceded the presidency to him, I think Vance would be another exception.
John Henry
Trump will be lucky to make it though this term he is too old and senile and ill.
And if he dies in office (God forbid) he would be "PRESIDENT FOR LIFE!!!!!"
John Henry
If Trump and Vance announced the plan ahead of time so the voters know what they were electing, wouldn't it be an example of DEMOCRACY!!!(tm) if they carried it out?
Where are all the defenders of democracy on this?
John Henry
When 22A was written, why didn't they just say "inelegible to serve a 3rd term" instead of leaving a giant loophole? Were they that stupid or did they do it on purpose?
John Henry
@John henry, because under the 22nd a person CAN serve 3 terms. Not more than 2 years of one term to which another person was elected, plus being elected on their own twice.
3 Terms.
Our nearly 200 year history of VPs actually serving as prez has been almost uniformly horrible.
Apparently Chester A. Arthur wasn't so bad, to the shock of just about everyone.
Would they exercise their own judgment about what the constitution says or just do whatever Dear Leader wants?
Name your candidate. Then we'll answer the question.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.