Who Would Stop a Third Presidential Term?

The Twenty-Second Amendment clearly states that no one can be elected president more than twice. But who actually enforces this rule? Recent discussions about the possibility of a third term raise important questions about how our Constitution is enforced in practice. The answers are less reassuring than most people assume.

Getting on the Ballot

The first hurdle would be becoming a party's nominee. Surprisingly, the Twenty-Second Amendment does not prevent someone from running or being nominated. It only says they cannot be "elected." Political parties can technically nominate whoever they want.

The next step would be getting on state ballots. Some states might try to block a candidate, but the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Anderson suggests they might not have the power to do so. In that case, the Court stated it preferred nationwide consistency over letting individual states make different decisions about candidate eligibility, and placed the responsibility for enforcing eligibility with Congress.

The Role of Congress

If our hypothetical candidate won the election, the next step would be Congress certifying the results. With their own party in control, Congress might choose to certify the win despite constitutional concerns, arguing they are simply following "the will of the voters." Would a Republican-controlled Congress invalidate their own candidate's nomination? The honest assessment is: probably not.

The Heart of the Problem

This scenario reveals a fundamental truth about our government: many constitutional limits rely on officials choosing to enforce them. It is like a baseball game where the rules only work because everyone agrees to follow them. There is no automatic mechanism that stops someone from breaking them.

What This Means for Democracy

Our system depends on elected officials putting their constitutional duties ahead of party loyalty. When political parties prioritise winning over following constitutional limits, the safeguards become surprisingly fragile.

The real protection of constitutional limits does not come from courts or legal documents alone. It comes from voters and officials choosing to respect these boundaries, even when it is politically uncomfortable.

Looking Forward

Understanding these dynamics helps us see why protecting democracy requires more than just having good rules. It requires people willing to enforce those rules, even against their own party's interests. This means voters need to support candidates who demonstrate they value constitutional principles over party loyalty and political career.

Our dysfunctional election system forces lawmakers to prioritise re-election over tough choices. The political cost of doing the right thing is real, and most politicians are not willing to pay it. Changing the electoral mechanics that create this incentive is the structural solution. But it starts with voters demanding better.