Donald Trump has never cared all that much what the U.S. Constitution actually says. He certainly has never read the whole thing -- he makes this painfully obvious whenever he attempts to talk about it in any detail. And he has been actively trying to dismantle parts of it already. So it's no real surprise that he has trolled everyone again by flirting with the notion of possibly running (or otherwise somehow becoming) president for a third time, using the 2028 election to achieve this goal.

The typical reaction to this, of course, is to think that he can't possibly do so, because after F.D.R. died an amendment was passed which limits presidents to only serving two terms in office. Unfortunately, however, this isn't exactly what the Twenty-Second Amendment actually says. Here is the pertinent text:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

It's a very short amendment. The rest of it specifies that it wouldn't apply to the person who was currently in office, just to future presidents. And then there's a second section that just says it has seven years to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (which it was).

But you'll note, in that key passage, that the prohibition is on being elected president. Not actually serving as president.

Up until now, everyone has read the true intent of the amendment as a limit on any president serving more than two terms (or one and more-than-one-half terms, in the case of someone who takes over as president mid-term). Constitutionally, all that should be allowed is a maximum of two terms, period.

Trump, however, is surrounded by weaselly men and women -- some of them lawyers -- who have rather bizarre interpretations of what the Constitution really means. And this isn't the first time this subject has come up -- there has been speculation all along that somehow Trump wants to be president-for-life. Steve Bannon fanned these flames again recently in an interview, mysteriously stating: "Trump is going to be president in '28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that. At the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is."

Trump fed the trolling with his signature "maybe I will, maybe I won't" type of answer, when asked about Bannon's comments by a reporter on Air Force One. And, as several late-night comedians have pointed out, Trump already sells official merchandise with "Trump 2028" printed on it. In the one-and-only meeting he has held with the Democratic congressional leaders since the government shutdown began, he even placed a couple of these hats on his desk, pointing at the Democrats (because that is exactly how petty Donald Trump truly is).

So what is Bannon even talking about? Probably not actually amending the Constitution, which is what would be required. Some Republicans have proposed this, but amusingly they're also reportedly trying to write it so that it somehow wouldn't also apply to Barack Obama.

No, what Bannon and a few others are dreaming about is somehow doing an "end-run" around the Twenty-Second Amendment. Because, in their interpretation of the language of it, as long as Trump is not actually elected president, but somehow just sort of inherited the job, then everything would be constitutionally fine.

They could try doing this in two ways (there may be others even more fantastical, but these are the two I've actually heard discussed). The first would be to run Trump as the vice-presidential candidate, with someone else at the top of the ticket. Then, on Inauguration Day, the two are sworn in and the new president immediately resigns. Trump is then sworn in a second time, as president, and serves out a third term.

This runs into a portion of the Twelfth Amendment, however, which concludes with: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." This seems pretty cut-and-dried, but Trump's legal weasels would argue that the Twenty-Second Amendment doesn't say anything about who is eligible to be president, just who is eligible to be elected president.

The second end-run around all of this is even trickier. In this scenario, the Republican ticket doesn't have Trump on it at all -- two other people run for president and vice president. Then, when Congress meets at the start of January in 2029, the first thing the Republican majority in the House does (this scheme requires Republicans win the House, by the way) is to elect a new speaker. The rules of the House explicitly state that anyone can be elected speaker -- they don't even have to be a member of the House. So the GOP House elects Donald Trump as speaker. Then on Inauguration Day, the new president and vice president are both sworn in and they then immediately both resign.

By the constitutional order of succession, the next in line after the vice president is the speaker of the House. Which would be Trump. So he would ascend to the presidency without his name even being on the ballots. This actually has somewhat of a national precedent, as Gerald Ford was never elected to any nationwide office, but he wound up being president anyway (Ford was appointed and confirmed by the Senate as vice president after Spiro Agnew resigned, and then Ford became president after Richard Nixon resigned).

Constitutionally -- and giving full consideration to the makeup of the current Supreme Court -- Trump might conceivably even get away with this switcheroo. And then he'd be there for a full third term in office.

Personally, I don't think it'll happen, though. I say this for a couple of reasons, the least of which is that Trump dismissed such a plan this week. When asked about the possibility he could run for vice president, he responded that he'd "be allowed to do that," but that: "I wouldn't do that. I think it's too cute. Yeah, I would rule that out because it's too cute. I think the people wouldn't like that. It's too cute. It's not -- it wouldn't be right."

For what may be the first time on a constitutional issue, I actually agree with Trump -- that it'd be "too cute by half" (as I would put it).

But there are two bigger reasons I have for not concerning myself much with worries of at third Trump term. The first is his age. He will be 82 years old in 2028, which would make him 86 by the end of a third term. And he has already noticeably slowed down during his current term. Watch a random video clip of him from the past few months and then watch one from 2017 or 2019 to see what I mean. These days, he just always looks tired. And his health problems could be getting worse (although we certainly wouldn't know about it from the White House, that's for sure).

But the biggest reason I just can't believe the "and then he resigns" scenarios is that it would be tough to find someone to fill the role of sacrificial lamb. Who would put themselves through the ordeal of running for president -- and then winning the presidency -- simply to hand it away? That would take a superhuman amount of toadiness to Donald Trump. Of course it wouldn't completely rule it out -- there are a handful or people (such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, or Ted Cruz) who might conceivably be that loyal to Trump. But then again, they might not. They'd run the risk of the rage of the MAGA crowd if they were to refuse to follow through on the scheme of immediately resigning, but then again they would be president. That's a very powerful enticement, which is why I could see even one of those uber-toadies decide at the last minute to just keep the reins of power for themselves.

If Trump and his minions attempt such a fanciful scheme, it would doubtless prove to be the most bizarre political campaign in U.S. history -- "Vote for me so I can resign and put Trump back in charge again!" That is a seriously strange political slogan, you've got to admit. How would voters react to such a (as Trump calls it) "cute" scheme? Would any but the die-hard MAGA people vote for it?

I guess stranger things have happened, but as I said, I really think all of this is just trolling the media and Democrats, while at the same time allowing Trump to grift his supporters into buying a new red hat or a new T-shirt. That seems more Trump's style.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant