I don’t think the distinction of holding the office of President versus being elected to the office of President is such a silly distinction as to compare Earth and Martian years. It’s not even a hypothetical. Several men have held the office without being elected to it.
I halfway expected a scenario in which Bush 43 would toss a low-yield nuclear rocket into a vacant part of Iran, and then point out in 2008 that we are engaged in a nuclear war and that is sufficient for the president, as an executive order, to declare an emergency in which an election and a change in the administration would be a grave risk to the republic. I suspect the Congress would have supported him on that as wholeheartedly as they supported the equally contrived invasion of Iraq, especially since they’d all get to keep their seats, too.
As for the OP, I believe it is correct. The XXII Amendment refers only to “elected as president”, and does not limit a person becoming president under any other guise, such as succeeding to the presidency in any other manner as prescribed by the Constitution. Bill Clinton could be appointed Secretary of State, and nothing in the XXII Amendment would bar him from serving the remainder of any elected president’s term.
I’m sure I posted the very same thing a couple of years back.
Moderator Note
Let’s keep off topic political commentary out of GQ. No warning issued, but let’s stay on track.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Ha, that could be where I read it. Although I seem to recall it being in the context of LBJ; that if he’d have run again in '68 he would be the longest serving president since FDR (the rest of JFK’s term plus 2 of his own), so the convo turned to just repeating that first term over and over with a POTUS resigning and the VP taking over.
It’s a hypothetical in the sense that nobody’s ever tried to make the claim that they were eligible to the office on the basis of differing interpretations. People like Johnson or Ford were eligible to serve as President regardless of which interpretation you could have used.
Now if, to give a hypothetical, Hillary Clinton gets nominated as the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2016 and she names her husband as her Vice Presidential candidate (or if Jeb Bush gets nominated and picks his brother George) we’ll see what happens.
I’m sympathetic to this sort of rules lawyering and I actually have to disagree with Little Nemo that a plain-text reading of the amendment governing TLP says what he claims it says.
The way I am parsing the part of the sentence “for more than two years of a term…” contradicts what little nemo is saying. To me, it’s specifically saying that the two years have to be part of a single term. No adding them up from a series of different terms. That would be something like “for more than two years total of any previous terms…”
I don’t even get how you can argue for the “adding up all the time spent from finishing up previous terms” when the amendment clearly says “a term.”
In short, I’d like to see this happen as soon as possible. Obama, step down just shy of 2 years and let Biden give this a go.
To become POTUS for life, get the majority of the Supreme Ct. on your side. What is that, 5 people?
Do that, and you can remain President for a thousand years.
Being born outside of the country does not make you ineligible to be president. Being born outside of the country to non-citizens makes you ineligible to be president (which was the case for both Crisp and Henderson).
Not really. Congress and the States can amend the Constitution without any input from the President or SCOTUS. Which they’d do pretty much immediately if it looked like this sort of chicanery was going on.
Not really. THe SCOTUS could declare any of the activities of the states as unconstitutional. AND, if the court declares anything unconstitutional, everybody would fall into line. What are they going to do? The president’s party would definitely be for it, and their propaganda machine, along with the court, guarantee the outcome. And, the military will go along with the court and the President, because the President is the CinC. Military, SCOTUS, Party…who is missing?
Have you thought about what happens when Michelle Obama’s elected in 2024, and lets hubby “help out”?
Let’s see: Hilary, Michelle, Chelsea, Sasha…
At that point you’re basically talking about a military coup. So, yes, whoever has the guns gets to be ruler. But you don’t need judges for that, and their Constitutional powers are fairly irrelevant.
So technically our beloved leader could be eleced VP over and over, and the day after inauguration his patsy resigns making him president.
Since he is never elected president, he is still eligible to run for president once, which means he is still eligible to run for VP (over and over).
I assume too, if the patsy resigns each time after the electoral college vote but before inauguration, I imagine the perpetual VP would have no interruption in his reign?
Hail to the leader!
(What’s the hymn from ** The Comedians**…?
Papa Doc Duvalier, president for life…
You know if someone is pulling this they have a cult following that’s pretty strong, like Hugo Chaevz did, and nobody dares fight them. Cue the end for democracy.
No, you’re missing the whole point. Check out the whole of Court ordered desegregation that required the military’s intervention. If anybody disagreed with any of the decisions, it didn’t matter: the military did what was ordered by the President. I’m not calling them 'sheeple", the fact is, that most of the military aren’t going to against the Supreme Ct. and the President based on their/our interpretations of the Constitution, so, the military is not a mover in this situation, it is a pawn. They aren’t going to tell their CinC or the SCOTUS what to do, they are going to do what the Prez and Court, 2/3 of the government, tell them.
So was George Washington.
Not even as a joke. He was born in a colony, so he might have been a British citizen but that’s not the same thing as being born in the United Kingdom.
And of course he was eligible.
There seemed to have been no procedure for converting British to American citizenship other than mere residence in the States. In addition, I’ve never heard that those in areas of the U.S. not an original state were ever considered to be anything other than U.S. citizens. It would have been interesting if someone from Vermont had been a presidential candidate in the early days. But the issue never came up. The first president to be born outside of the original 13 colonies was Lincoln, but Kentucky had been a state for more than a decade at the time.
At this point, we’re in a situation very similar to the thread “What powers does the Queen of England actually have?”
When someone is ordered to do something they disagree with, they have assorted choices. they can go along, walk away, argue, or physically oppose the action. Buried in all that is the caculation “what can I get away with?” It takes a remarkable number of like-minded people in positions of power to pull off a coup or a secession, especially in an active democracy like the USA. It also takes a calulation on the part of any leader, “what can I expect people to followalong with?”
A person with a position of authority - president - can likely get away with a lot more that someone challengig that authority, but as Nixon found in the night of the long knives, even those who’ve sold their soul to DC have limits to what they will do when ordered.
Some do have limits; however, if the Supreme Ct. and the POTUS decide on something, the coup would be if the military *doesn’t *go along.
And of course, if an officer percieves diametrically opposite orders from POTUS and his commander, that’s a recipe for chaos.
Like every democracy, like every human group, everything is a balance - at a certain point people will be pushed to the point where they stop cooperating and the whole structure falls down.
People want to do what POTUS or SCOTUS tells them because the want to avoid coming to that time in the Course of human events, when it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.
Which is why the people might tolerate someone who “plays games” but stays within the strict legal interpretation, who is likely to be allowed to be re-elected VP/Potus over and over… but someone who attempts to ignore the law, or a court ruling, may find hemselves isolated.