The U.S. Constitution permits a president who has already served two terms to be elected to a third term

What's this about?

People disagree about whether a former president who won two elections could become president again.

The main question involves a third election or a return through another job, such as vice president.

What supporters say

• The amendment limits being elected president, not every way someone might later reach the top job.

What critics say

• The amendment’s history shows that its writers wanted a broad limit of two wins.
• The amendment clearly says that no person may win the presidency more than twice.
• Many legal experts think the law blocks a two-time winner from becoming vice president and then taking the top job.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; the strength of each point matters more.

The bottom line

The evidence strongly shows that a person elected president twice cannot win a third presidential election.

We are not sure yet whether that person could return through vice-presidential succession, but many legal experts reject that path.

The Constitution is generally understood to prevent someone who has already been elected president twice from winning a third presidential election. A narrower dispute remains over whether that person could return to office through an indirect route, such as becoming vice president and then succeeding to the presidency.

The case for

The main argument for the claim starts with the wording of the Twenty-Second Amendment. It says that no person may be elected president more than twice. It does not expressly say that a person elected twice can never hold the presidency again.

That wording creates a possible distinction between being elected president and taking office through another constitutional process. Under this reading, a twice-elected former president might be barred from appearing on the ballot for a third presidential election but could perhaps become vice president and later assume the presidency after a vacancy. Legal scholars have identified this as a genuine textual tension, rather than a purely theoretical argument. 1

The amendment also does not impose an absolute limit of eight years in the White House. A vice president or other successor who serves no more than two years of another president’s term may then be elected president twice. That person could serve nearly 10 years in total. Supporters of the claim argue that this shows the amendment regulates how someone becomes president, not every possible period of service.

Still, this argument is narrower than the claim itself. It focuses mainly on succession, not on whether a twice-elected president could openly run for a third elected term.

The case against

The amendment’s direct language is widely understood to prohibit a third presidential election. It says that no person may be elected president more than twice, and it contains no exception for elections held after a break in service. 2

The amendment’s history points in the same direction. Congress and the states adopted it after Franklin D. Roosevelt won third and fourth presidential elections. It was understood as replacing the old informal tradition of leaving office after two terms with a constitutional rule limiting presidential reelection. Historical and legal analysis generally rejects the idea that the amendment bans only consecutive reelection. A nonconsecutive third elected term would still conflict with the amendment’s purpose and structure. 3

The proposed vice-presidential route is also widely viewed as unavailable. The Twelfth Amendment says that anyone constitutionally ineligible to be president cannot serve as vice president. Many constitutional commentators conclude that a twice-elected president would therefore be barred from using the vice presidency as a path back to the White House. Allowing succession in those circumstances would also be seen as an attempt to evade the term limit. 4

There is, however, a real unresolved question about succession. The Constitution may distinguish between being ineligible to be elected president and being constitutionally ineligible to hold the office. That issue has never been decisively tested. But it does not by itself show that a third presidential election is allowed.

The bottom line

The evidence moderately favors the conclusion that the Constitution does not permit a twice-elected president to win a third presidential election. The opposing view has a strong and legitimate argument based on the amendment’s precise use of the word “elected,” especially regarding an indirect succession route. But the direct constitutional text, the amendment’s history and its broader purpose provide stronger support for the contrary position.

The main uncertainty concerns whether an untested succession mechanism could exploit the difference between being barred from another election and being barred from the presidency itself. That narrower question does not overturn the stronger conclusion on the claim as stated: a third elected presidential term is generally understood to be unconstitutional.