Fact check: How does the 22nd Amendment affect the vice president's ability to serve as president?

1. Why the Text Sparks a Constitutional Puzzle

The 22nd Amendment says a person shall not be elected to the office of President more than twice, using the operative term “elected” rather than a broader bar on holding the office. That specific wording is the crux of scholarly arguments that a two-term former president might be ineligible to run for president but not necessarily ineligible to be appointed or succeed to it via the vice presidency, because succession is not an election to office. This textual distinction is highlighted repeatedly by analysts who note the amendment’s silence on unelected accession, creating a genuine constitutional ambiguity ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Supporters of a Loophole Point to Amendment Interplay

Legal commentators who see a potential loophole rely on the interplay between the 12th Amendment’s rules for electing President and Vice President and the 22nd Amendment’s narrow electoral restriction. They argue that since the 22nd Amendment targets the act of election, a former president could be constitutionally eligible to be vice president and then succeed to the presidency for the remainder of a term without having been “elected” to that third term. This interpretation appears in multiple scholarly sources asserting a permissive reading of the amendments’ texts and histories ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Opponents Point to Purpose and Democratic Safety

Other analysts emphasize the amendment’s purpose — preventing extended incumbency and preserving leadership rotation — arguing that allowing a two-term ex-president to return via the vice presidency would subvert that democratic safeguard. These critics read the 22nd Amendment functionally, asserting that courts and Congress would resist an interpretation that undermines the amendment’s core norms against prolonged rule, and they stress the political and institutional costs of such an outcome ^{[5] [4]}.

4. Practical and Political Constraints Matter as Much as Text

Beyond pure text, the feasibility of a two-term president serving again via the vice presidency faces immediate practical barriers: political parties, voters, and rivals would confront the move; Congress and state officials could respond with legislation or litigation; and the courts would likely be asked to adjudicate. Analysts note that repealing or formally changing the 22nd Amendment is possible but deliberately difficult, and that reliance on a succession loophole would almost certainly prompt rapid legal and political pushback ^{[6] [4]}.

5. Judicial Review Would Be Central and Uncertain

Any attempt to use the vice presidency as a backdoor to the presidency for a twice-elected individual would trigger litigation reaching the Supreme Court, where textualist and purposive arguments would clash. Scholars point out that prior case law gives the Court the final say on constitutional ambiguities, and that judicial interpretation could go either way depending on doctrinal approach, composition, and willingness to preserve democratic norms against perceived circumvention ^{[3] [1]}.

6. Recent Commentary Frames This as a Live Political Question

Contemporary reporting and analysis, particularly in late-2025, frame the debate as not merely academic but politically charged, with commentators warning that proposals to sidestep the 22nd Amendment through the vice presidency are being discussed in partisan contexts. Coverage stresses that while legal theories exist supporting the loophole reading, opponents characterize such maneuvers as antidemocratic and would mobilize legal, legislative, and electoral responses, indicating high-stakes political dynamics underpinning the constitutional question ^{[4] [5]}.

7. Bottom Line: Ambiguity Requires Court or Constitutional Fix

The evident conclusion across sources is that the 22nd Amendment’s text creates a real ambiguity about unelected succession by a two-term former president; scholars supply plausible legal rationales on both sides, while political actors emphasize purpose and precedent in opposition. Resolving the issue definitively would require either a Supreme Court ruling, a constitutional amendment, or clear congressional action—each path reflecting competing legal interpretations and the political will to preserve or reinterpret the amendment’s limits ^{[1] [2] [6]}.