By law they can’t serve. It’s arguable that anyone can run.
I see the taxpayer savings.
I got the plurality thing, but the election hypo was a run-off system. Any idea how that might turn out, coz I have none.
This may be the first good thing I’ve ever said about the Electoral College system, but wouldn’t it prevent something like this from mattering in the Presidential election? Even if we (the people) voted for someone who is ineligible, our votes don’t directly count for squat - it’s the Electors’ votes who do, and each state determines how their Electors vote. Do we really think the *Electors *will cast votes for an ineligible person?
In 1872, three electors voted for Horace Greeley, who was dead. Death, one would think, renders one ineligible. Maybe. Congress refused to count the votes.
Ponder this one–Suppose, next December, 270 electors go crazy and vote for Arnie. (Who knows how they were pledged when elected.) Of the remainder, 140 vote for Obama and 128 for McCain.
You’re a member of Congress. What is the proper way to certify this result?
Is Arnie duly elected, but constitutionally ineligible to serve, meaning that the Vice-President-elect takes office on January 20?
Or are his votes null and void, meaning that nobody has a majority of the electors appointed, and under the Twelfth Amendment the House must ballot between Obama and McCain? (The Greeley precedent argues for the latter, but it was long ago and nobody much cared at the time.)
We are (or aspire to be) a nation of laws, and not of men (or women). Even if Ah-nold were thus bizarrely and phenomenally popular and inspired a majority of the Electoral College to ignore the law, it is still the law. Unless and until it is changed (in this case, by constitutional amendment), it must be obeyed. This would be an unprecedented situation, perhaps even a constitutional crisis, but the Framers left it to Congress to decide. If I were a member of Congress, I would be limited in my decision to Obama or McCain. As I am a Democrat, and my district will surely go for him by a large majority, and I personally favor him anyway, I would vote for Obama.
Right – too many steps along the way where someone can stop them. If we are going to respect the notion of Rule of Law, the Secretaries of State/Election Commissioners of the states would be compelled to say, “sorry, as you’re not eligible it is my duty to not put you on the ballot even as an independent, nor certify your votes even as write-in; sue us or have the people elect legislators who’ll amend the constitution and laws to change that.”
Once you decide popular acclaim trumps the legal procedural requirements, you have degenerated from democracy to mobocracy.
That’s freakin’ hilarious. And, now that you mention it, it does ring a bell. FWIW, I think Congress did the right thing in that case.
I think that’d be the way to go, if threatening the Electors to knock it off didn’t do it. But IANAConstitutional Scholar, of course.
It’s not illegal to run, even if ineligible. Róger Calero (despite not being a U.S. citizen) tried in 2004 and is trying again now, leading the Socialist Workers Party. Some states wouldn’t let him on their ballots in '04 because of his ineligibility, but he still got over 3,000 votes. There have been similarly quixotic runs from other ineligibile candidates, including some under 35.
In fiction, there’s the example of Hope Hubris, protagonist of Piers Anthony’s series Bio of a Space Tyrant. At the end of the third book, Hubris runs for President of Jupiter, despite ineligibility (he was born on Callisto). The groundswell of support prompts a constitutional convention that dissolves the existing Jovian government in favour of Hubris, making him the sole authority.
The first woman to run for president, Victoria Woodhull, was clearly ineligible to run – not because she was a woman at a time when women could not vote, but because she was too young. I assume that other candidates did not sue to get her off the ballot because:
(1) They did not have official ballot papers (this was at a time before the Australian ballot was introduced); and
(2) She had no chance of election, not just because she was a woman, but because General U.S. Grant was so very popular.
Julian Bond was given a nominating speech and received 48.5 votes for Vice President at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, despite being only 28 years old.
What are the Requirements to Run for President in the United States? Arnie would not be able to run because he was not born in the US. Clinton was limited to 2 terms. He is done.
Either one would require a constitutional amendment which would take a long time to achieve.
I think you’re being a tad obtuse. What law would Bill or Arnie be breaking if (however quixotically) either decided to run and campaign for the presidency? And why weren’t Julian Bond, Victoria Woodhull or Róger Calero arrested on the same grounds?
They do not match the eligibility requirements. Their vote would be tossed out.
Your original assertion was that “[n]either one can legally run for president,” with legally an adverb modifying the verb run, the implication being that the act of running cannot be done legally, i.e., is an illegal act. Hey, ya wanna get pedantic, I can go all day. 
The penalty isn’t jail time, though. The “penalty” is the jurisdiction in question not allowing your name on the ballot, and nullifying any votes you got (if write in, for example).
Do you really think the state of California would send an elector to D.C. with the instructions to submit his vote for “Bugs Bunny”? (Supposedly, a lot of folks use the write-in spot to lodge a protest vote.)
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Without a constitutional amendment reversing the constitutional prohibition on naturalized citizens or already-two-term presidents from serving as president, neither could be president no matter how many people liked them.
I’m curious why you think this. It seems to me the press is the one place where they would be taken very seriously.
Not at all. It comes down to the constitutional question. No matter how popular someone is, even if it were Jesus Christ himself, he’s not going to become president until the Constitution is changed, and the press would know that. It will never be a case of, “Aw, shucks, he’s not supposed to be president, but surely we can bend the rules this one time.”
Now a mass movement to get an amendment with a particular person in mind might work, but I doubt it. That would open the door to less-popular contenders in the future.
I’m reminded of a very weird Letter to the Editor in the Bangkok Post back in the 1980s. It was written by a Thai and thoroughly castigated the US for not allowing naturalized citizens to be president, especially Thais. From this lengthy screed, it was perfectly clear the writer truly believed the only thing keeping a Thai from becoming president of the United States was this silly rule in the Constitution, that the American public really would vote for a Thai at the first opportunity. It was really bizarre.
No, gonzo, you’re wrong, and missing the point.
There is no law that says they can’t RUN for President. The law says they cannot actually assume the office.
Either Arnie or Bill Clinton could certain run for office in the hopes that the Constitution would be amended before the election. I think what the OP is asking about is the timing. A “massively popular” drive to the Presidency would presumably include a drive to have the Constitution changed - in the case of Arnie to add an amendment to make it possible for a naturalized citizen to be President, in the case of Clinton revoking the 22nd Amendment. So the question is, what is the latest point at which that amendment could become law for Arnie or Clinton’s campaigns to not be interrupted?
Just like the press “knows” a car cannot run on water.
The press “knows” there is no bigfoot.
The press “knows” there is no pill that can make you lose weight.
The press “knows” horoscopes are bull.
Etc., etc.
It doesn’t matter if they can’t become president unless the constitution is changed; it would be a huge story and it would be in every media outlet’s best interest to run stories making it sound like it just might happen, because - out of joy or fear - that’s what people would want to hear.