Not a serious question in that I know it would never happen, but from a Constitutional perspective, is it possible and legal for him to do so in 2016?
Don’t feel like researching it, and I’m sure someone here knows the answer.
I don’t think there’s a definite answer. The 12th Amendment says “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President” but the 22nd Amendment just says Obama is ineligible to be elected president. Whether this is enough ineligibility to make someone ineligible to be the VP has never been hashed out fully and probably never will be.
The 22nd amendment specifies that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice, or more than once if they served two or more years of a term they weren’t elected to. It doesn’t, however, say anything about the other way around, and makes no mention of the vice-presidency, so as far as I’m aware, yes, a former two-term president could be vice president. And could serve a third term as president if the president they’re elected under dies or is otherwise removed from office.
Again with this question? Seriously?
Previously (but with Bill Clinton):
nm, answered before me.
I think “elected” is the key word. That’s why Lyndon Johnson was able to become president upon Kennedy’s death, be elected to a full turn, and contemplate a run for another term, even though he decided not to run. I’ve never read that there was any controversy about this.
“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.”
Johnson served only one year of Kennedy’s term, so he was eligible to be elected twice. Had he succeeded to the office in, say, late 1961, he would only have been able to be elected once more.
I think that, if it came down to it, the Supreme Court would hold that Obama would not be eligible to be elected Vice President after serving two terms as President.
Exactly, you can try to weasel on the exact wording all you want, but this scenario very clearly violates the intent of the 12th Ammendment, so I’d think the tendency for any sane court would be to rule such an attempt unconstitutional.
And regardless of what the Supreme Court said, the Court of Public Opinion would almost certainly disallow it. It’d look like shenanigans, and the voters don’t like shenanigans.
Agreed. Under the unlikely circumstances that the public would accept such an arrangement I think the Supreme Court wouldn’t or couldn’t interfere, but those improbable circumstances would also readily allow an amendment to clarify the matter anyway. Just not going to happen in any political environment where electing a president matters anymore.
Explain Trump.
People love clowns. But they hate cheaters.
Nobody’s voted for him yet.
[Moderating]
Let’s not sidetrack this into a discussion of Trump, or other political issues unrelated to the OP.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Under rules of statutory construction, you only look to the intent of the drafters if the language is ambiguous. IMHO, the language is not ambiguous. A person may not be “elected” President more than twice. It says nothing of becoming President or acting as President by other means such as through death or resignation of a person higher in the line of succession.
Therefore, Obama is not “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President” under the 12th amendment, so he is eligible to be elected Vice-President.
But is he eligible to be president if he’s not eligible to be elected president?
At least the way I understand it, the Supreme Court took the opposite approach in the recent decision on the Affordable Care Act. They interpreted it according to the intent of the drafters of the law, rather than its precise phrasing.
At any rate, considering how often this issue gets raised, I would say that it’s unambiguous that the language is ambiguous.
We do sorta have precident. The Presidential Succession Act skips anybody who would not be eligable to become president (I remember this coming up when Madeline Albright was Sec. of State). I’d say that this prima fascia recognition of ineligability outweighs any ridiculous attempts to find a loophole for someone who is already term-limited out of office.
Are you saying:
(a) He would be ineligible to be Vice President because if the President got kidnapped by space aliens, he couldn’t ascend to the Presidency, or
(b) He would be eligible, because the Act specifies that people such as him would be skipped (and he would be, therefore, the exception that proves the rule)? See: Kissinger et al.
Well, the whole point of the VP is to be eligible to become president. That is literally the only reason the position exists. The business about presiding over Senate sessions is just so that Congress doesn’t mistake him for some lost tourist, and have security escort him out .
A VP who is not eligible to be president would be a spectacularly useless thing, so I’m going with choice (a).