Read the 22nd Amendment again. For persons who’ve served two terms as President (or one term and most of a second), it bars one and only one path to return to the Presidency: by election. It does NOT bar such a person from succeeding to the Presidency in any other way.
If Hillary wanted to dump Kaine from the ticket in 2020 and replace him with Obama, that would be perfectly legal. And if Hillary then had a fatal heart attack in February 2021, Obama would finish her term.
The good thing about Obama is that he’s young enough to go out and sock away millions over the next few years, and THEN go and have a few scandals.
That is one interpretation of the amendment. Another is that if he is unable to be elected to the office of President, he is unable to run as vice president, and he would be skipped over in the line of succession in the Cabinet, the same way Kissinger and Albright would have been. Since it has never been tested in court, no one really knows what would happen. And since no same candidate for President would want the controversy during their campaign, it likely never will be determined.
That one will earn you a warning, adaher. Please refrain from insults in the future.
Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton probably could have won a third term if they had been able to run.
I’m sure anyone can come up with an interpretation of the 22nd Amendment. But the actual wording is really quite clear. It does not bar persons from becoming President by any path other than election:
[QUOTE=22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Underlining mine, of course.
The intent of the amendment was surely not to allow a two-term President to return to the office over and over by succession shenanigans. Even if the wording doesn’t specifically prohibit it, the attempted use of the loophole would create a constitutional crisis.
I vote with Lok. Along with the other thousand what-if scenarios we’ve hatched over the years, nobody really knows what would ensue in the real world.
It wouldn’t be a political mistake because of the Republicans. Here’s why it would be a political mistake.
When the President is meeting with the Cabinet, there’s one person in charge, and that’s the President. All the Cabinet members are equal, at least theoretucally, and several at the President’s pleasure. Put the former president in there, and that dynamic changes. He’s somebody who’s used to being in charge, and used to being listened to, and people are used to listening to him. This creates an automatic power imbalance. If President Clinton digress with Secretary of State Obama on something, it won’t just be the President and Sec State disageeing. It’ll be the President and ex President disagreeing.
Hillary is already going to face the problem with Bill…the co-president problem. …to what extent does he pull the strings, to what extent will he have a defacto third term through his wife. There’s nothing she can do about people having those speculations, but she’d just add to it if she named President Obama to her cabinet.
And if she did, I’d doubt he’d be eligible for the succession. That reading of the amendment doesn’t make sense and doesn’t fit with the intent of the drafters. But the very fact that we’re talking about that is a reflection of the above attitude of Hillary as puppet if she were to name him as Sec State.
So it would seem our young, popular and scandal-free ex-president will work on improving things that are important to him.
Not being familiar with the legislative history of the 22nd Amendment, and being too lazy to dig into it, I can’t speak to the drafters’ intent.
But the wording is clear and quite specific. They could have gone with broader, more all-inclusive language that would have applied equally to all ways of returning to the White House, but they didn’t.
And having chosen specificity, they were specific about not returning to the Oval Office via election, but they did not address succession in the event of death, resignation, or impeachment and removal.
They chose to be specific and focused, and it’s hard to believe that ‘oh, they meant to include an additional set of specifics, but there was a drafting error’ would cut it with the courts. Lord knows there are many ambiguous passages in the Constitution and its amendments, but this isn’t one of them.
But returning to the thread topic, it does have to be kind of a strange situation for those who, like Clinton and Obama, have attained the pinnacle, and completed two-terms-and-done as President at an age where many of us are still growing professionally.
“Where do you go - what do you do - the night after you’ve saved the Universe?” asks the cover of a Howard the Duck comic from 40 years ago. It’s gotta be kind of like that. There’s no bigger mountain to climb. Oh, there are still many challenges in the world, but you’ll never again be able to bring to bear the same power and influence as you once had. And any political office, be it Cabinet, Senate, Governor, or anything else, is a distinct and substantial step downhill.
For most Presidents, this hasn’t been a problem. Most Presidents have finished their Presidencies at a more advanced age, and they didn’t used to live so long. The Presidency is a hard job, and between the stress of the job, a long earlier political career, and a relatively short number of years ahead to enjoy, what to do with the rest of their lives wasn’t a challenge.
But you get someone like Obama who is leaving the White House still clearly full of energy, with a long and healthy post-Presidency to look forward to - our system just wasn’t built to make full use of his talents and experience. It’s crazy.
William Howard Taft served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after his presidency. I don’t think that’s in Obama’s future, though (I agree that the confirmation hearings would be brutal).
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
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.
I think Obama will be able to make great use of his talents. Of course he’ll get the $200,000 USD speaking appearances all over the world. I’m sure he’ll start a charity foundation, but I really think he could shine as an international statesman. Whether that’s through the UN or some other way I think he could make a real contribution since he’s pretty much universally respected overseas (except perhaps in Russia).
Does that mean an end to racial gerrymandering?
The law is the law though. If a President doesn’t have clear authority then his orders can be ignored. It’s not enough for him to just sit in the Oval Office. He’s simply not the President.
I’d also note that Presidents, or would-be Presidents, are not the only ones who can just decide what the law is. John Roberts administers the oath of office. In a catastrophe, if he skips to #5 because he feels #4 can’t be President because of the law, then it’s decided. And if I’m John Roberts, and I sense that the ex-President has a “Constitution be damned” attitude, I’m grabbing my Bible and running around looking for the first guy after the ex-President in the line of succession.
Yes, Clinton’s policies. Clinton is too belligerent to have even someone like Obama around.
There’s also ego. Why would an ex-President ever work for another President? Congress is different, Congressmen don’t work for anyone but their constituents. But a Cabinet officer reports to the President. Besides, would Obama obey Clinton any better than Clinton obeyed Obama?
Yes the sacred words must be uttered, or when Obama tries to leave with the cup of everlasting life, the ground will open and he will fall into an eternal abyss.