You’ve probably heard someone at a dinner party or on a social media thread claim that a popular president could just "stay on" if enough people wanted them to. Or maybe you've seen the theories about "loopholes" involving the vice presidency. Honestly, the answer to can us president have 3 terms is a hard "no" in almost every modern scenario, but the history of how we got here—and the one tiny mathematical exception that still exists—is actually kind of wild.
Most people assume the two-term limit has been around since George Washington. That’s not quite right. For nearly 150 years, the "two-term limit" was just a polite suggestion. It was a tradition, a "gentleman’s agreement" started by Washington because he was tired and wanted to go back to his farm, and reinforced by Thomas Jefferson who genuinely feared a "president for life" would just be a king with a different title.
📖 Related: What Really Happened During the Mecca Crane Collapse
Everything changed with Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The Man Who Broke the Tradition
Before FDR, a few presidents actually tried for a third helping of power. Ulysses S. Grant wanted one but his party said no. Theodore Roosevelt tried to come back for a third (non-consecutive) term under the "Bull Moose" ticket but lost.
Then came 1940. The world was on fire. With World War II erupting in Europe and the Great Depression still fresh, FDR decided the "unwritten rule" didn't apply during a global crisis. He ran. He won. Then, in 1944, he won a fourth time. He died in office just months into that fourth term, leaving the country in a bit of a panic about the prospect of "forever presidents."
Congress reacted fast. By 1947, they proposed the 22nd Amendment, and by 1951, it was officially part of the Constitution.
How the 10-Year Rule Actually Works
So, the short answer is that the 22nd Amendment explicitly says no person can be elected to the office of the President more than twice. But there is a specific, "West Wing" style scenario where someone could technically serve for 10 years.
It’s all about the "two-year cutoff."
- Scenario A: If a Vice President takes over because the President dies, resigns, or is removed, and there are more than two years left in that term, that VP can only be elected to the presidency one more time.
- Scenario B: If the VP takes over with two years or less remaining in the term, they can still run for two full terms of their own.
Basically, you can have 2 years of someone else’s term plus your own 8 years. That’s the absolute ceiling. No one has actually done this since the amendment passed. Lyndon B. Johnson could have technically tried for it; he took over for JFK with about 14 months left (less than two years), won his own term in 1964, and could have legally run again in 1968. He chose not to, largely due to the political heat from the Vietnam War.
👉 See also: News in Vancouver WA: Why Everything is Changing Right Now
The VP Loophole: Legal Genius or Total Fantasy?
Every few years, a theory pops up: could a two-term president like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush run as Vice President on someone else's ticket and then "take over"?
It’s a legal grey area that gives constitutional scholars headaches. The 22nd Amendment says you can’t be elected president a third time. It doesn't explicitly say you can't serve if you've been elected as VP and the President steps down.
However, the 12th Amendment throws a massive wrench in that plan. It says: "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Most experts, like Jeremy R. Paul from Northeastern University, argue this settles it. If you’re ineligible to be elected President because of the 22nd Amendment, you’re ineligible to be VP. Period. Could someone try to challenge this in the Supreme Court? Sure. Would it work? Most likely not. The courts generally try to respect the "intent" of the law, and the intent of the 22nd Amendment was clearly to stop people from holding the top spot for a third time.
Why We Don't Just Repeal It
There have been dozens of attempts to get rid of the 22nd Amendment. Ronald Reagan famously thought it was a bad idea, arguing that the people should be allowed to vote for whoever they want, for as long as they want. Harry Truman, the first president the amendment technically applied to (though he was grandfathered in and chose not to run), also had mixed feelings about it.
The main argument for keeping it is simple: anti-tyranny.
Without term limits, an incumbent president has a massive advantage. They have the "bully pulpit," the name recognition, and the federal machinery. The fear is that a three-term or four-term president would become so entrenched that the "checks and balances" of the other branches would start to wither away.
Can us president have 3 terms? The Verdict:
- Election: Impossible under current law.
- Succession: Only if they are a VP who took over with less than 2 years left in a predecessor's term (and even then, they'd only be "elected" twice).
- Repeal: Requires a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate, plus ratification by 38 states. In today’s polarized climate? Zero chance.
If you're looking for a way to see your favorite former president back in the Oval Office, the law is pretty much a brick wall. The 22nd Amendment was a direct response to the only time in American history the "gentleman’s agreement" was broken, and it was designed to make sure it never happens again.
If you're interested in how this affects current political cycles, the best thing to do is keep an eye on the primary eligibility filings. State election officials are the first line of defense; they won't even put a name on the ballot if the candidate doesn't meet the constitutional requirements. For those curious about the specifics of the line of succession beyond the VP, checking the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 provides the full list of who is next in line—and yes, the same eligibility rules apply to them too.