Feb 19, 2026 · 1 hr 12 min · 20 segments
How Trump Can Legally Be President in 2029 - And Exactly How He Does It - Alan Dershowitz 🍿 Watch the full interview: http://londonreal.tv/dershowitz PLEASE…
Alan DershowitzGuest
Brian RoseHost
Um, I can't really disclose what he told me, but what he has said publicly is it's probably a little too cute.
Um, there are bases in the Constitution for allowing him to serve a third term.
Look, the reason I wrote this book is, if I were back teaching and this issue had come up, I would assign my students this question.
I would ask them, "Write an essay on whether or not, under the 22nd Amendment, a two-term president could ever serve a third term." And I wouldn't grade them based on whether I like their answers or their answers support my political views.
I would grade them on the basis of the analysis, and I hope my book will be graded on the basis of the analysis as well.
It's not a book intended to, uh, encourage President Trump to run for a third term or to encourage Barack Obama, a young man, to serve a third term if exigent circumstances arise that allow him to serve a third term.
What it... out is the deep fallacy of the 22nd Amendment, which doesn't prohibit a president from running, serving, acting, holding office.
That opens the door to possible circumventions of what was clearly the intent of the framers of the 22nd Amendment.
The framers clearly wanted to make sure that two-term presidents stay out of the White House.
Very simply put, we don't want them in the White House, we don't want them to be president, we don't want them to be vice president.
Let them be elder statesmen, but follow George Washington's lead, Thomas Jefferson's lead.
So what happens constitutionally when the purpose of an amendment conflicts directly with the text of the amendment? And that's what happens here.
In my book, I have an appendix which lists all the proposals that were made, and Congress rejected an amendment that would preclude holding, serving, or acting.
Instead, they adopted a much, much, much, much narrower term, being elected.
So what should the courts do? What should we do as people in a democracy when you have a direct clash between the text of a constitutional amendment and its obvious purpose? And that's what I decided to write a book about.
Um, I can't really disclose what he told me, but what he has said publicly is it's probably a little too cute.
Um, there are bases in the Constitution for allowing him to serve a third term.
Look, the reason I wrote this book is, if I were back teaching and this issue had come up, I would assign my students this question.
I would ask them, "Write an essay on whether or not, under the 22nd Amendment, a two-term president could ever serve a third term." And I wouldn't grade them based on whether I like their answers or their answers support my political views.
I would grade them on the basis of the analysis, and I hope my book will be graded on the basis of the analysis as well.
It's not a book intended to, uh, encourage President Trump to run for a third term or to encourage Barack Obama, a young man, to serve a third term if exigent circumstances arise that allow him to serve a third term.
What it... out is the deep fallacy of the 22nd Amendment, which doesn't prohibit a president from running, serving, acting, holding office.
That opens the door to possible circumventions of what was clearly the intent of the framers of the 22nd Amendment.
The framers clearly wanted to make sure that two-term presidents stay out of the White House.
Very simply put, we don't want them in the White House, we don't want them to be president, we don't want them to be vice president.
Let them be elder statesmen, but follow George Washington's lead, Thomas Jefferson's lead.
So what happens constitutionally when the purpose of an amendment conflicts directly with the text of the amendment? And that's what happens here.
In my book, I have an appendix which lists all the proposals that were made, and Congress rejected an amendment that would preclude holding, serving, or acting.
Instead, they adopted a much, much, much, much narrower term, being elected.
So what should the courts do? What should we do as people in a democracy when you have a direct clash between the text of a constitutional amendment and its obvious purpose? And that's what I decided to write a book about.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
