Well, Bob, I see you have exactly zero functioning knowledge of the Constitution of the United States of America.
As far as this discussion goes, you’re on my “coventry” list.
I suppose my “zero” knowledge of the functioning of the constitution matches Monty’s.
OK, yes, it’s all true. Bill Clinton will try to attempt a coup d’etat to continue his presidency through Constitutional shenanigans with Al Gore. He wants to have more time to serve in an office in which he have next to no political support.
Clinton’s supposed third term is about as asinine idea as mine was about the Congress deciding not to count certain electoral votes.
Well, Wendy, it might have meant one additional term now, mightn’t it?
“You should tell the truth, expose the lies and live in the moment.” - Bill Hicks
a bit askew . . forgive me but why slam bill?are we in a recession caused by democratic policy? do we have missles raining on us due to democratic policy? think not. our worst social problems seemingly stem from. . . we the people. . . making bad choices in our relationships with each other. . and not guiding our children . . neither of which are political issues. i think the present administration has overall made progress and i wouldnt have a problem with clinton being president again.
The lack of political support for a Clinton third term would be because people would feel that he is violating the Constitution, not out of any policy dispute.
spoke- asked
The Speaker doesn’t automatically succeed to the Presidency. United States Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 19 deals with this issue.
Under that provision, if neither the President nor the Veep is able to act, the line of succession is:
- Speaker of the House;
- President pro tem of the Senate;
- Secretary of State;
- Secretary of the Treasury;
- Secretary of Defense;
- Attorney General;
- Secretary of the Interior;
- Secretary of Agriculture;
- Secretary of Commerce;
- Secretary of Labor;
- Secretary of Health and Human Services;
- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
- Secretary of Transportation;
- Secretary of Energy;
- Secretary of Education;
- Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
But, after listing this line of succession, the statute then adds that this provision “… shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution.” So, if for some reason the Speaker is ineligble to be President, he/she gets skipped.
Here’s a link to the provision in question: US Code, Title 3
Now, that doesn’t answer the question of eligibility. Personally, I’d incline to Bricker’s interpretation of the interplay between the 12th and 22nd Amendments. (Sorry, DS.)
But what do I know? I’m just a Canuck.
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe
Milossarian,
You said in your first post:
> We came pretty close to having King FDR
> the First there for awhile. Who knows how
> many terms he would have been elected to
> if he had been, say, 45 when first elected.
So he would have had one more term. You made it sound like it would have been many more terms. In any case, we were not close to having FDR become king. It may not have been a good idea for FDR to have had four terms, but he would have left office in 1948 no matter what. With the war over, he would have considered his job done.
What the heck. This actually deserves a response.
“None” does not equal “Much.” Nor does it equal “Some.” It only equals “None.” But I’m gracious enough now to say you probably have some knowledge as evidenced by your admission (which I describe below).
Where did I suggest that W. Clinton would do such a thing? Perhaps you could keep this discussion to the realm of facts.
Well, at least you admit that your comment was not constitutionally correct. After all, for the Congress to discount an Electoral Vote, they must have a constitutionally based reason for that action.
What has been addressed is the constitutionality of Clinton becoming president after the elected prez is removed from office by either death, resignation, or impeachment. As it stands, there’s no constitutional restriction against him running for vice-president and there’s certainly none against his being appointed to a cabinet post. Obviously as a former president alone, that’s not one of the folks who get to become president in that event.
Of course, I doubt that he’d do any of that. And I also seriously doubt that Congress would confirm him in a cabinet post.
I don’t see him even considering it. But I do see the question as one of constitutional law. No harm with checking the document in question to get its answer instead of just going off of one’s own preconceptions; now, is there?
It’s nice to know I’m back to being held in low esteem by Monty instead of no esteem. I can feel the ego boost already.
But anyway … What I’ve tried to argue (but not to Monty’s satisfaction) is that a presidential third term is just a political impossibility.
You could argue that there is some sort of constitutional loophole to get around it (and presidents and Congresses in the past have looked for those), but it is a pracitcal and political impossibility.
This thread will live on unfortunately.
Good God, a couple of attorneys discuss an interesting, but totally immaterial point of statutory construction (the language in Amendment 22 as construed with the language in Amendment 12), and then all of a sudden a fight breaks out.
I’d be laughing over the concept if it wasn’t for the fact none of you seems to have read the actual discussion between Bricker and me at the inception of this thread.
Therefor, just to show some of us still pay attention to chaos they have created, I will summarize the points:
-
Amendment 22 disallows anyone from being ‘elected’ president who has served two full terms.
-
Amendment 12 disallows anyone from being Vice-President who is ‘constitutionally ineligible’ for the Presidency.
-
There are provisions in the Constitution that existed prior to Amendment 12 that disqualify some people from being President.
-
Therefor, unless the USSC determined that ‘elected’ included ‘elevated from Vice-Presidency (or Speakership, etc.)’, Amendment 22 doesn’t preclude Clinton from being President.
-
This being the case, Amendment 12 does not preclude Clinton from being Vice-President.
-
The statute regarding succession cited above does not add anything.
NOW, if anyone wants to have a serious discussion of this ludicrous notion, at least you will have some basis for accurate assertions, assuming anyone actually chooses to read what I have said THIS time. 
Well, someone else started it! 
This is what I could find out about what the framers of the 22nd Amendment said:
``By reason of the lack of a positive expression upon the subject of the tenure of the office of President, and by reason of a well-defined custom which has risen in the past that no President should have more than two terms in that office, much discussion has resulted upon this subject. Hence it is the purpose of this . . . [proposal]
. . . to submit this question to the people so they, by and through the recognized processes, may express their views upon this question, and if they shall so elect, they may . . . thereby set at rest this problem.’’\1\
\1\H.R. Rep. No. 17, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1947).
It seems to me that Congress wanted to codify the practice of only serving two terms in office as established by Washington.
I do like how the report says that the amendment “would put the problem to rest”.
Not here apparently.
I agree w/DSYoungEsq on this one.
12th Amendment says a person can’t be VP if he can’t be Prez.
22d Amendment says a person may only be elected Prez twice, and may serve two years of someone else’s term.
Therefore, Clinton, if elected VP, could serve two years of the former President’s term.
There, that’s two attornies to one! Nyah!
I would suggest, in the interest of objective debate, that we use someone other than Bill Clinton as an example. This debate isn’t really over Clinton’s merits or shortcomings, it’s about a question of Constitutional Law.
Plunging like stones from a slingshot on Mars.
I have always been led to believe as Frank states it that he could be Pres for 2 years and then there would have to be a special election for the remaining two years.
Seems like a big waste to me for just 2 more years. Besides Gore would be stupid to choose Bill, after all the other friends of Bill that have died does anyone doubt that Bill would have Gore offed to get the seat back?
Jeffery
DS, sorry to be disagreeing with you, but this is the Straight Dope - inquiring minds, uh, ramble around, off topic. spoke- asked a question about the succession; admittedly not directly on point with your original discussion, but sorta within the ball-park; I answered his question, noting that the statute did not answer the basic constitutional question of eligibility that started this thread.
on the point of construction that you and Bricker are debating, concerning the 12th and the 22nd Amendments, I understand both your arguments and Bricker’s; I just find Bricker’s interpretation more compelling. Until the issue actually comes up somehow, I doubt that we can resolve the disagreement.
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe
I actually agree with DSYoung’s reasoning; it’s his arrogance I find annoying. You think you and Bricker are the only lawyers in the house, Chief? (If, in fact, you are a lawyer, as your oh-so-pretentious “Esq” tag suggests.)
But thanks so much for coming down from Law Mountain with a bucket full of wisdom (and hubris) for the rest of us poor slobs.
Now, back to the OP. As I said, I actually agree with DSYoung’s reasoning. I think the intent of the 22nd Amendment may have been to prevent a third term altogether, but if so, it is poorly worded, containing as it does the language about being “elected” to a third term.
Now, unless the wording of an amendment is ambiguous, the Supreme Court will not explore the intent behind the Amendment. The word “elected” is not ambiguous in my view, and therefore, a President is prohibited only from being elected to a third term, and is not prohibited from ascending to the office by other means. Thus, a President in Clinton’s shoes could seek the Vice-Presidency (or serve as Speaker of the House, or serve as a cabinet member) and then subsequently ascend to the Presidency from that position.
If you’re asking about Clinton specifically, I don’t believe he would ever try that. But an enormously popular President (say, in the FDR mold) might try it, and might succeed. You don’t like the idea? I think it would take another amendment to change the outcome.
I’m sorry I missed anwering this thread earlier; bloodshed might have been averted.
As between me and DSYoung, the dispositive points seem to be:
-
Is the language ambiguous?
-
If it is, what is the legislative intent?
1. The language is ambiguous.
“Elected” can mean “to select by vote for an office, position, or membership.” It can also mean simply “to make a selection of,” as in “I will elect an academic program.” It can also simply mean to choose: “I might elect to sell the business.” Given the multitude of ways one may become President (by vote of the Electroal College, vote of the House, or succession to an empty office as Vice-President) and the context of the Twelfth Amendment as addressing the office as a whole, not simply the every-four-year slection of a new inhabitant, a broad context for the word “elect” is justified. The amendments, taken as a whole, are thus ambiguous, and we are entitled to apply statutory construction rules rather than the plain meaning, since no clear plain meaning exists.
I don’t have much new to add in support of (2); I would simply reiterate that the two Amendments, read in pari materia, support my contention.
I will admit that I might be stretching on the election thing, just a bit.
- Rick
Wouldn’t an overwhelmingly popular president just try to get the 22nd amendment repealed, instead of attempting an end run around it? I don’t think the voting public would appreciate that very much.
Also didn’t FDR’s narrowest margin of victory
come in his third election? The idea of a third term was a major issue in that campaign.
BobT wrote:
I should clarify. I didn’t mean that a popular President might try an end run back into the Oval Office. What I meant was that an enormously popular President in love with politics might seek the position of Vice President or Speaker of the House, just to stay in the political fray. Then, having attained that position, such a politician might find themselves in the Oval Office again, should death claim the President.
As to a popular President seeking repeal of the 22nd Amendment:
Well, I suppose it could happen. Seems to me I remember some talk along those lines after Reagan left office. The problem I see with that course of action is that the process of getting an amendment passed by Congress and by the required number of states would generally take so long that the then-sitting President wouldn’t get the benefit of such an amendment. I suppose if a President were wildly popular, on a nation-wide level, such an amendment could get pushed through quickly enough to do him/her some good.
I seem to recall from when there was noise of repealing the 22nd when Reagan was in office that the prevailing opinion was that even were it repealed he would still be barred from seeking a third term because he was elected with it in force. Poor Republicans…never thought they’d be able to elect someone popular enough to win a third term.
On another subject, the Constitution prohibits anyone who is “foreign-born” from becoming President.
I don’t know why the Bush people didn’t think of this, but wasn’t John McCain born in the Panama Canal Zone? I know it was American territory at the time, but I always thought that you had to be born in the states or the District of Columbia to be eligible to run for President. No matter how you slice it, American territory isn’t the same as the United States…