# Are the circumstances of Obama's coming post-presidency unique? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 22, 2016, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405 "2016-10-22T22:30:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/41 "2016-10-24T12:27:38Z")
It’s not so much that he has to say the words, so much as if John Roberts swears in someone else, there won’t be much dispute about who the President is at that point. And the ex-President would look like a supreme ass if he tried to claim he was the legitimate President. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/42 "2016-10-24T12:29:57Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Bill Clinton? Sure he had scandals but that was mostly resolved before he left office. Sure, aside from the selling pardons, stealing the furnishings from the White House, staffers trashing the place, and Clinton’s five year disbarment. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/43 "2016-10-24T12:51:39Z")
I don’t see lesser elective offices in his future, nor do I see him on the Supreme Court. More likely he’ll devote his time to writing and charitable works. He won’t be on the cabinet, I don’t think any president would want a former president looming over a cabinet meeting. Maybe just maybe UN ambassador. Still, I’m betting on writing and enjoying fatherhood and perhaps in the not too distant future, being a grandfather. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/44 "2016-10-24T12:53:22Z")
> [@Lok](#): > > Exactly. You have an interpretation of the 22nd, which some legal scholars agree with, just as others follow the interpretation I posted. But until you write the SCOTUS decision explaining exactly how it works, your opinion on it is no more valid than anyone else. OK, so my opinion that “the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” means that the fox jumps over a dog rather than a marmoset, is just my interpretation. Gotcha. What, the plain meaning of a document is “just an interpretation,” no matter how clear, specific, and unambiguous the wording is? I just don’t freakin’ get it. The 22nd Amendment could have been written more broadly, rather than so specifically. Or, having gone with specific wording, it could have specifically included the case of succession due to death, resignation, or impeachment. The authors having done neither of these things, it’s one hell of a stretch to believe that they meant to have done one or the other. > [@adaher](#): > > It’s not so much that he has to say the words, so much as if John Roberts swears in someone else, there won’t be much dispute about who the President is at that point. OK, suppose the Dems had been able to simultaneously impeach and remove from office both Bush and Cheney back in 2007. If John Roberts had skipped over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and sworn in whichever member of the Bush cabinet was next in the line of succession, that would have settled it? Yeah. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/45 "2016-10-24T13:15:14Z")
No, of course that wouldn’t have settled it. Mrs Pelosi would’ve had another federal judge swear her into office and Congress would promptly impeach Roberts and remove him from office. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/46 "2016-10-24T13:18:44Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I would also bear in mind - > If circumstances were such that the fourth in line were called on to fill the role of President you would have to imagine some sort of catastrophe has taken place - in which case someone who has done the job well in the past would likely be welcomed - constitution be damned Well, the ex-President could conceivably be _first_ in line, i.e. the veep. Which is how the issue could be tested without a succession crisis: say in 2020, Hillary drops Kaine from her ticket, and chooses Obama as her veep nominee. The 12th Amendment says the veep has to be someone eligible to be President, a question which of course would hinge on whether the straightforward literal wording of the 22nd Amendment was accepted as its, um, _interpretation_. If Hillary won re-election with Obama on her ticket, someone would surely go to court to contest Obama’s right to be veep. Worst case? The Supreme Court would say no, he can’t be veep, and Hillary would use the 25th Amendment to fill the resulting vacancy in the office of the Vice-President. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/47 "2016-10-24T13:22:35Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > No, of course that wouldn’t have settled it. Mrs Pelosi would’ve had another federal judge swear her into office Good point - while it’s traditional for the CJ to do the swearing-in, that’s not a requirement. When a Vice-President has succeeded to the Presidency due to the death of the President, the new President has usually been sworn in by whatever judge is immediately available. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/48 "2016-10-24T13:33:15Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > OK, so my opinion that “the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” means that the fox jumps over a dog rather than a marmoset, is just my interpretation. > > Gotcha. > > What, the plain meaning of a document is “just an interpretation,” no matter how clear, specific, and unambiguous the wording is? I just don’t freakin’ get it. So you are a textualist now? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/49 "2016-10-24T14:07:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So you are a textualist now? > > Regards, > Shodan I couldn’t tell you what a textualist is. However, though IANAL, I believe it’s standard practice in the legal biz to strongly favor the literal wording of a document over other possible interpretations - that while there can be circumstances that can overcome the presumption that the literal meaning is the correct one, you’ve got to have a really strong argument to overcome that presumption. IOW, while sometimes there are sufficiently strong arguments for going with an alternative interpretation, it ain’t a coin-flip thing between one and the other. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/50 "2016-10-24T14:25:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure, aside from the selling pardons, stealing the furnishings from the White House, staffers trashing the place, and Clinton’s five year disbarment. > > Regards, > Shodan Let me address one of those claims. “CLAIM: The Clintons were forced to return an estimated $200,000 in furniture, china and art they “stole” from the White House.” Snopes: MOSTLY FALSE Cite: > **[FACT CHECK: Did Hillary Clinton Steal $200,000 in White House Furnishings?](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-stole-white-house-furniture/)** > > A recirculating rumor holds that Hillary Clinton was forced to return $200,000 in furniture, china and art she stole from the White House. ---
**Author:** ![DrumBum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e79b87/32.png) [@DrumBum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrumBum)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/51 "2016-10-24T14:50:05Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > Only Senate approval. Just like if she put him forward as a nomination to SCOTUS. So, approval would depend on the balance of power in that chamber. If Pres. Obama was seated on the SCOTUS would he find himself having to recuse himself on more cases than is normal ? I don’t have a clue and IANAL so it is likely I am way off base. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/52 "2016-10-24T14:57:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure, aside from the selling pardons, stealing the furnishings from the White House, staffers trashing the place, and Clinton’s five year disbarment. > > Regards, > Shodan [Trashing the White House](https://www.truthorfiction.com/trashingthewhitehouse/) > [@](#): > > \*\*Summary of eRumor: \*\* > When George W. Bush took over the presidency in 2001, his new staff arrived in the offices of the White House to find that there had been widespread pranks and vandalism by the departing Clinton staff. Published reports said computers were left unusable, pornography was found on both computers and walls, and telephone systems were trashed by the cutting of cables and wires. > > \*\*The Truth: > \*\* > > The final, official report from the Government Accounting Office was released on June 11, 2002. The 220 page document says there was damage, although not as much as some of the early reports had suggested. The GAO says the damage included 62 missing computer keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten antique doorknobs and several presidential medallions and office signs. The damage estimate was about $20,000. Clinton critics say the report proves that the departing Clinton staff members acted recklessly and disrespectfully. Clinton supporters say the report shows that the allegations of vandalism were exaggerated and that there were similar incidents when Clinton took over the White House from the staff of George Bush. > > **The GAO report concludes that even though damage was verified and that some of it appeared to have been intentional, there was not clear evidence of who was responsible for it.** ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/53 "2016-10-24T15:08:03Z")
I’ve read that being a former president is in some ways more fun than actually being president. You serve as an elder statesman and troubleshooter for the current president, attend conferences and spend time on whatever issues you find appealing. Certainly Bill Clinton has enjoyed the opportunity to address big issues through the Clinton Global Initiative and his foundation. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/54 "2016-10-24T23:46:15Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t see lesser elective offices in his future, nor do I see him on the Supreme Court. More likely he’ll devote his time to writing and charitable works. He won’t be on the cabinet, I don’t think any president would want a former president looming over a cabinet meeting. Maybe just maybe UN ambassador. Still, I’m betting on writing and enjoying fatherhood and perhaps in the not too distant future, being a grandfather. I’ll think better of him if that’s what he does, but I suspect he’s going to try to compete with the Clintons on the moneymaking front. And might even pressure his wife or daughters to seek elective office so that potential buyers of his speaking services have even more reason to hand over money to him. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/55 "2016-10-25T00:03:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’ll think better of him if that’s what he does, but I suspect he’s going to try to compete with the Clintons on the moneymaking front. And might even pressure his wife or daughters to seek elective office so that potential buyers of his speaking services have even more reason to hand over money to him. What about conspiring with our enemies to destroy America? Why stop with your personal hatred of the man at mere profit and enriching himself? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2016, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/56 "2016-10-25T00:05:30Z")
All I did was suggest that he might emulate the Clintons. How is that akin to destroying America? It’s just moneygrubbing, maximized by the promise of future quid pro quo. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2016, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/57 "2016-10-25T00:09:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > All I did was suggest that he might emulate the Clintons. How is that akin to destroying America? It’s just moneygrubbing, maximized by the promise of future quid pro quo. I’m snarking on your inability to keep your intense and irrational personal hatred of Obama out of your characterization of his motives. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/58 "2016-10-25T00:15:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > All I did was suggest that he might emulate the Clintons. How is that akin to destroying America? **It’s just moneygrubbing** , maximized by the promise of future quid pro quo. Unlike the Noble GW Bush who wouldn’t dream of [selling out.](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/on-talk-circuit-george-bush-makes-millions-but-few-waves-118697) > [@](#): > > Since 2009, POLITICO has found, Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches and probably many more, typically pocketing $100,000 to $175,000 per appearance. The part-time work, which rarely requires more than an hour on stage, has earned him tens of millions of dollars. No charities, no attempt to atone for the tens of thousands maimed and killed so he could out-do Daddy. > [@](#): > > “History will ultimately judge whether I made the right decisions or not,” he said at a gathering put on by the Advertising Specialty Institute in Dallas. I think history has judged you an incompetent asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2016, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/59 "2016-10-25T00:17:30Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > I’d like to see Hilary nominate Obama for the Supreme Court, although I can’t see Michelle going for it. Why not? They’ve said they’ll be staying on in Washington until their kids graduate high school. ---
**Author:** ![Tzigone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Tzigone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tzigone)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2016, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405/60 "2016-10-25T00:28:47Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Why not? They’ve said they’ll be staying on in Washington until their kids graduate high school. Supreme court is for life. Their youngest will graduate high school in the very near future. She might want to go elsewhere after that. I’m don’t think Clinton will nominate him. I don’t even really think that’s the best use of his talents. I mean, he’s a really good speaker and inspirer (or so I’ve heard; I hate the pauses, myself). Speeches, front-man for causes, etc. would be something he was good at. I have no idea what he actually wants to do, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-circumstances-of-obamas-coming-post-presidency-unique/769405.md?page=4)