Who is responsible for enforcing term limits?

Question

There have been various discussions recently regarding whether it might be possible to find a loophole so that a candidate could run for a third term as US President without violating the Constitution. But setting that question to the side for the moment - who is responsible for enforcing term limits in the first place?

In other words, suppose a president just brazenly ran for a third term, without making any attempt to hide the fact that he was violating the Constitution. How would this be stopped? Does his party have a legal duty not to nominate him? Does the electoral college have a duty to overrule the election? Does the Supreme Court have a duty to disqualify the candidate? Is the whole thing just on the honor system??

Answer 1

A person who's not eligible to serve in the elected office cannot be registered as a candidate for that elected office. The Secretaries of State of each of the 50 States are responsible for checking the eligibility requirements of each of the candidates registering in their state.

In Trump v. Andersen SCOTUS determined that Secretaries of State cannot use the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment as a criterion to disqualify the candidate (absent legislation from Congress). That was AFAIK the only SCOTUS case challenging the decisions of a Secretary of State enforcing eligibility criteria. As mentioned in Jen's answer, there's no requirement from SCOTUS for a Congress legislation with regards to the 22nd amendment (term limits).

There are also multiple examples of civil suits by various voters claiming that Obama was ineligible to stand for election or serve as a President, but none went very far or anywhere near SCOTUS (those who tried to appeal to SCOTUS were denied). It does show an additional path for enforcement through voter action (frivolous in case of Obama), if the Secretary of State acts inappropriately.

Answer 2

I agree with littleadv that state executive (usually the Secretary of State) has the responsibility and power to enforce the term-limit eligibility criterion by not listing them, or an associated slate of electors, on the ballot. This is supported the concurrence in Trump v. Anderson and answers given in oral argument by Trump's lawyer (see this other Q&A).

There is at least one other potential site of enforcement: the Congress counts the electoral college votes. It is open to Congress to object to electoral votes that have "not been regularly given." An electoral college vote for a candidate who is plainly disqualified could be a vote not "regularly given."

Were Congress to decline to recognize such votes, this would deny the disqualified person the presidency.

---

The answer by Peter conflates two different "enforcement" issues. Once either of the above steps are taken, the term-limit has been "enforced." The person will not be President.

No physical force is required to enforce a person's status as non-President. They just simply aren't — by operation of law.

I believe Peter is referring to a subsequent enforcement issue not asked about in this Q&A: who enforces the constraint that a person who isn't President cannot do things that are reserved to the President? But that is for a separate question.

Answer 3

You ask who is responsible for enforcing a term limit, not who determines whether the limit has been reached, i.e., eligibility.

Enforcement of the law eventually is the task of the executive. The legislative bodies make the law and, in the cases where they are not elected directly, elect members of the executive and the judiciary in their role as representatives of the people; the judiciary decides disagreements; but the executive, as the name says, executes the law, which includes enforcement — if necessary, using physical coercion. The latter is the task specifically of the various police and armed forces.