Inspired by this post.
Has it happened that a sitting US President has sought re-election not as President but as Vice President?
ISTM that someone like Cheney or Pence would prefer to operate behind the scenes and prefer being VP, so if through some circumstance they found themselves President they might want to continue in power but as VP.
The qualifications for president and vice president are the same. There is nothing stopping him except the party if they still have years of eligibility. If they already served two terms they can’t be Vice President.
John Quincy Adams served 18 years in the house after being president , that would be pretty much unheard of these days.
In 1980 there was a rumor Reagan talked to Ford about being his VP running mate but I don’t know how much truth there was in that story.
Harry Truman supposedly offered to step down back to the Vice Presidency if Dwight Eisenhower had decided to run as the Democratic presidential candidate in 1948.
Former President John Tyler was elected to the Confederate House of Representatives in 1861. But he died before taking his seat.
Don’t know if that’s necessarily true, and I believe there’s some debate around this. The 22nd Amendment says “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.”
Being elected president and ascending to the presidency by way of the vice presidency are two different things. I’m not a Constitutional expert however, so I’m not gonna argue one side of this or the other too strongly.
Almost. Ronald Reagan considered having Gerald Ford as his running mate in 1980. Ford did not particularly like Reagan and wanted to be a “co-president,” and the negotiations fell apart.
Had that happened, and had John Hinckley had better aim, Gerald Ford would have gone into the 1984 election in the really weird position of seeking a third term as president despite never having been elected president (the 22nd Amendment would have still allowed him to seek a single term regardless of how many 2+ year terms he had served before his first election).
Yes, we have done this debate many times. I remain of the position that there is a distinct difference between being “elected” president and being president.
Whereas I agree that a robotic reading of the text would lead to that conclusion, but that it’s clearly not what the authors of the 22nd amendment meant.
Slightly different scenario of a possible VP serving under 2 different presidents.
I really can’t see it happening in the modern era, it’s unique that we’ve had two presidents serve two terms and yet neither Cheney nor Biden ran for president. Cheney due to health and the low approval ratings in 2008 and Biden says he didn’t run because of the death of his son and probably because of the inevitability of Hillary Clinton.
2000 could have been interesting. If Bill Bradley wins, does he ask Gore to stay on as VP and saying Gore is in charge of climate change policy? I doubt Bradley would have kept Gore but it’s the only likely scenario I can see in modern times.
That’s not robotic. It is assigning the known meaning of words which have definitions as part of the English language. There is a difference between being elected president and serving as president. Ask Gerald Ford (I know, if he were alive).
The drafters of the 22nd Amendment knew the words “serve,” “act,” “be” etc. They chose the word “elected.”
Is there any legislative history to back you up on this?
Leave the elected/appointed thing elsewhere, gentlemen. It’s not really the topic of the thread.
The OP is basically a yes/no question. So now you want to take out any discussion relating directly to whether a president running for veep is even a possibility.
Why not just answer the OP with a yes or no and then close the thread?
Because…
A) We’ve done it a thousand times
B) The OP asked a different questions
and
C) Answering the question Y/N could lead to a productive discussion about why or why not. Your Yes/No question might be the next responder’s 1000 word insightful analysis.
Yeah, the discussion here had organically moved to “Why or why not?” And I didn’t realize we couldn’t discuss things that have been discussed prior.
Are you as a mod telling us not to discuss the legal reasons why a president has not gone on to run for veep? Or as a poster annoyed about the direction the discussion has gone? From what I can tell, discussing the legality of a former president serving as vice president is entirely relevant to why it’s possibly not happened.
As a mod, I received a report asking me to end the hijack. I did so.
Did I stutter?
A one-term President can run for veep. There is no argument over that. And all Presidents who served before the ratification of the 22nd Amendment could have run for veep, regardless of how many terms they served, plus Harry Truman who was grandfathered in.
Trump is our 45th President. We’ve had 43 persons before him who were President, after we remove the double-count for Grover Cleveland.
Only five Presidents have been prevented (if such is the case) by the 22nd Amendment from running for veep after their term as President came to an end: Ike, Reagan, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama. And we know none of them actually did run for veep afterwards, so that’s that as far as the question in the OP is concerned.
And another seven Presidents were prevented from running for veep after they completed their terms of office because they died while President.
That leaves 31 Presidents who unquestionably could have run for veep after their time as President was done. So the question remains, did any of them do so?
Of course, even before the 22nd Amendment, there was a tradition against serving more than two terms. Now, traditions are a lot vaguer than laws, but it’s still likely that a two-term President running for VP would be regarded as violating the tradition.