How would the 12th Amendment affect a vice‑presidential workaround to the 22nd Amendment?

1. Text versus intent: what the Amendments actually say

Textually, the 22nd Amendment forbids being “elected to the office of the President” more than twice, which focuses on election to the presidency rather than every form of service as President, while the 12th Amendment bars anyone “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President” from the vice‑presidency ^{[2] [1]}. That literal separation of terms — “elected” in the 22nd and “ineligible” in the 12th — is the narrow textual crack that some scholars point to when sketching a vice‑presidential workaround ^{[3] [8]}.

2. Two competing scholarly constructions

A strand of scholarship argues the 22nd’s restriction is limited to election and therefore does not expressly prevent a two‑term former president from later becoming Vice‑President and then ascending if the President dies, resigns or is removed ^{[3] [6]}. Conversely, a larger group of commentators and many constitutional scholars deem that result implausible because it would subvert the evident purpose of the 22nd Amendment — to prevent extended incumbency — and because the 12th’s ineligibility clause can reasonably be read to incorporate the 22nd’s effects ^{[5] [4] [9]}.

3. Practical obstacles beyond the text

Even for proponents of the loophole, multiple practical and legal hurdles would remain: a litigated test would require courts to reconcile amendments passed decades apart, the Supreme Court’s approach to qualifications cases (such as U.S. Term Limits precedent on qualifications) could be decisive, and Congress could alter statutory succession rules to blunt any workaround — all reasons scholars stress uncertainty remains high ^{[7] [6] [3]}.

4. Constitutional design and framers’ purpose as counterarguments

Critics of the workaround emphasize constitutional design and the 22nd Amendment’s clear remedial purpose created after Franklin Roosevelt’s four terms; they argue courts would favor an interpretation that prevents evasion of term limits and that reading the 12th to permit a circumvention would “defeat the clear intent” of the 22nd ^{[5] [2]}. Major commentators and law professors have stated that such an outcome would conflict with the amendment’s historic aim and therefore is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny ^{[5] [4]}.

5. What would decide it: litigation, political branches, or Congress

Because no person has attempted this path and the issue is legally unsettled, the ultimate resolution would almost certainly be political and judicial: an election that tried the maneuver would prompt immediate court challenges, Congress could move to clarify succession or qualifications statutes, and the Supreme Court would likely be the final arbiter of whether the 12th Amendment bars a two‑term ex‑President from the vice‑presidency in light of the 22nd — an outcome the current literature treats as open ^{[7] [6] [1]}.

Conclusion: the 12th Amendment is a brake, not a definitive ban

The 12th Amendment is the most consequential counterweight to any vice‑presidential workaround because its ineligibility clause can be read to incorporate the 22nd’s bar on extended presidential service, and many leading scholars and fact‑checkers call the “loophole” implausible; nonetheless, a narrow textual reading favored by some academics leaves theoretical room for the maneuver, and absent a judicial ruling the constitutional question remains unresolved ^{[1] [5] [3] [6] [7]}.