One possibility about a Clinton third term
is that the amendment cited that otherwise sounds clear cut is arguably intended for CONSECUTIVE terms, partly because FDR (who caused the amendment) benefitted from incumbency in winning those 3d and 4th terms.
In 1988, there was some talk of Reagan being Bush’s running mate; if he became president again, it would have been after Bush served some time as President. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Amendment, for precisely the reason I just outlined–why run someone for Vice-President (or President four years later) when you don’t know what the Supreme court is going to say about it?
As to your hypothetical, the electoral college exists partly for this situation; they would probably consult legal experts,
and if they are convinced that the president -elect is inelegible, they would choose someone else, perhaps the VP elect. Another complication (which you addressed once years ago) is that the Pres-elect may die after the
electoral college votes and before he is sworn in; if the VP is the previous President
(or both the Pres and VP die, and the Speaker of the House, who is next in line is the previous Pres) then you have quite a problem.
But its never happened.
In order to be Vice-President, you have to meet all the qualifications of being President. That’s also in the Constitution. So it seems to this non-lawyer that no one who’s been elected President twice can be elected Vice-President, so that scenario isn’t going to work either.
This question reminds me of a lunatic liberal I know (I’m a liberal, too, I’m just not a lunatic about it) who insists there’s a law that says the President can suspend elections in time of war, and that Nixon was planning on keeping the Viet Nam War going just so he could do just that and remain President indefinitely. I tried pointing out the Constitution, that Viet Nam was not a declared war, and that it was over within weeks of Nixon’s second inauguration, but it was a losing battle. Since then, I’ve never used facts in an argument.
I like the “serve” vs “elect” distinction in the mailbag article. I suspect that the next rumor will be that Clinton has already hypnotized Gore, who will appoint Clinton Secretary of State. Gore will then, (in his hypnotized trance), call a meeting with his vice president and all the appropriate members of Congress–Speaker, President Pro Tem, whoever–and detonate a bomb taking them all out, leaving Clinton as president.
(How long before this rumor shows up on either Slush’s or Falwell’s show?)
This is speaking without any references, but I’m sorry I don’t remember.
Technically, and legally, I think that the President can remain in office.
There are a number of Executive Orders dating back at least to Kennedy, maybe even further, under which the President can declare a “national emergency” and thereby suspend the Constitution.
I saw an article on this in the past year or so, which named the XO’s, and quoted the language, but I didn’t commit any of the info to memory.
But, then the question is “Just how serious an emergency has to exist before he can get the support of the government and (more importantly) the military?”
I noted the sarcastic reference to “evil Clinton.” For those of you who do not live in Arkansas, believe me, the term is not a light, sarcastic remark. Beware and be very afraid.
GKittridge is absolutely correct about the Constitution. The 12th Amendment provides in pertinent part “[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” This amendment, when read in conjunction with the 22nd Amendment makes it absolutley clear (no small feat when it comes to Constitutional interpretation by the way) that President Clinton could neither become President again nor could be become Vice-President and thus serve as an Acting President in any of the whacked out theories regarding mind control of Vice-President Gore. Further, as was mentioned in one of the replies, the President could not constitutionally suspend any part of the Constitution in a time or war or rebellion. Neither the President nor the Congress have the power to suspend elections. In fact, the 20th Amendment provides (also very clearly) that the term of the President ends at noon on the 20th day of January. Were no elections to have taken place, there would indeed be a Constitutional crisis because the country would be without a President or a Vice President, as both of their terms would have expired. Im sure that many of the conspiracy theorists that are suspicious of President Clinton’s intentions toward a third term are now quite excited by the prospect of having no President or Vice-President at all.
Whoops! Ok, you guys got me on the Vice Pres. thing. I’m not sure it’s quite as clear-cut in the conspiracy area (the hypnotized Al Gore making him Secretary of State), because if everybody ahead of him died or left office, it could be argued that he’d become Pres. again without ever having been Vice Pres. And the Pres. requirements only deal with being elected.
To deal with the original post by Cuzco: Uh, I just don’t see it. The Amendment says:
Can you please show me where in there anything is implied about when the person was president? Like I said in the response, it is pretty danged clear-cut. “No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice.” Where is the wiggle room in that?
I don’t have any argument about Clinton’s ability to be elected to a third term.
My point was that there are a number of Executive Orders, the origins of which are probably rooted in the Cold War, which allow the President to assume emergency powers and suspend the Constitution–in a national emergency.
There is a debatable point here. Clinton can not be ELECTED PRESIDENT. Can he be ELECTED VICE-PRESIDENT? Nowhere in the 22nd ammendment does it say he can not SERVE; it says he can not be ELECTED. In the early days, the Electoral college voted, and the person with the most votes was President; the person with the 2nd most votes was Vice President. When Pres/VP started running as partners, this was changed. Does that rule change allow Clinton to run as VP?
“The large print givith, and the small print taketh away.”
Tom Waites, “Step Right Up”
The fact that he LOST the popular vote both terms is an indication that the electoral college might have outlived its’ usefulness.
His conduct in office repudiates everything this country was founded on; situational ethics and moral bankruptcy is not the example we need coming from the oval office. Character IS important.
OK, Diamond, so we’ve established that Clinton couldn’t be elected a third time. How about Reagan? could he be elected a third time? Would that be OK by you?
Sheeesh, you guys. The discussion is about the OFFICE, not about the person who happens to hold it at the moment. You want to discuss Clinton as Person or Clinton as Politician, take it to Great Debates or BBQ Pit or MPSIMS.
Another consideration: The 22nd Ammendment itself may not be constitutional. In comparison to the 12th and 20th ammendments, which might be viewed as “clarifications” of presidential terms, the 22nd actually limits a president’s term to not more than eight years.
The underlying concept of the Constitution and the 3 branches of govt is “checks & balances”, so no one branch has absolute power over any other. The 22nd Ammendment is an example of the Legislative branch wielding absolute power over the Executive branch and posing limits. If brought before the Supreme Court, they may find the Ammendment unconstitutional.
The argument needs to be presented better, but you get the gist.
Given his record, and the proximity to the election, I don’t think this is a likelihood with Clinton. I would like to see this line of thinking presented by a President who is well-liked and who would likely win a 3rd term.
Something else: The 22nd Ammendment was created in response to FDR winning a 4th term. Congress did not want this to happen again. But why did they settle on two terms, and not more or less?
They could have chosen a limit of one term. Of course, this would be ludicrous as even Washington served eight years, and so had several presidents since. There would have been no precedent.
They could’ve chosen a three-term limit, but then what would’ve been the point? FDR did plenty with his 12 years in office.
They chose the two-term limit because historically it worked. No president had served more than eight years as president before FDR. And so it worked.
You’re darn right it does. How can a part of the Constitution be unconstitutional? The Supreme Court is not some almighty review board. It’s subordinate to the Constitution like Congress and the President are.
“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island
That is, by definition, quite impossible. Once it’s part of the Constitution, it cannot be unConstitutional. Why do you think the anti-flag-burners so desperately wanted a Constitutional Amendment? Because it would overturn the First Amendment and make their laws ok.
The Supreme Court can’t declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. As SCOTUS would view it, it is a political question, not a legal one. The Justices would say, “well, that’s the way it seems to work, so we agree.”
This issue has come up with the adoption of the 27th amendment, which limits the way Congress can give itself a pay raise. (They can’t go in effect until there has been a new Congress seated.)
This amendment was first proposed with the Bill of Rights back in 1789, but it wasn’t ratified by 3/4 of the states until 1992. Since there was no time limit written in to the legislation (as there has been with other amendments), the amendment became part of the Constitution, as least as far as the National Archives, who keeps the official copy of the Constitution, asserts.
OK, I am probably using the wrong terminology. Any Amendment is by definition “Constitutional”. So for 13 years, Prohibition was Constitutional. But people quickly realized you can’t legislate morality. A vast bootleg industry arose. The 18th Amendment was doing more harm than good and was repealed. It is no longer a functional part of the Constitution.
I am asking if the 22nd might be repealed based on that the Constitution has no implied limit on the term of office for the President, as there is also none for Congressmen or Supreme Court Judges, and establishing such a limit would be an example of Congress overextending their powers as pertains the Executive Branch.
How about posing it this way: If a highly respected President of a particular party wanted to run for a third term, and both the House and the Senate had a majority in that same party (or otherwise had a vested interest), could Congress repeal the 22nd Amendment?
