Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President. If you have non-consecutive terms it is a different presidency. The 10-year rule applies to a particular Presidency. So someone could have several non-consecutive terms, and it doesn’t break the 10-year rule.
Wrong, but I can see why someone might think it.
That may be, but Cleveland wasn’t an example of that. Cleveland ran once and was elected. Ran for reelection, lost, and then ran again and was elected. That’s only two times he was elected so would not be a violation of the 22nd Amendment.
Cleveland ran in THREE elections—in 1884, 1888, and 1892. It WOULD have been a violation of the 22nd Amendment.
Until today, I thought it would have been okay, but the 22nd says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, and Cleveland was elected three times.
Running in an election is not the same thing as being elected, under the 22nd Amendment, Grover Cleveland would be entirely allowed to do exactly what he did–win an election to the Presidency, lose reelection, and then successfully run again. He was elected twice, that is the limiter.
You can run as many times as you want. I think William Jennings Bryan and Henry Clay may have ran 3 or 4 times each.
I retract all of my posts in this thread. For some reason, I thought Cleveland was President for eight years, lost, and then was President again for another four years.
[Dr.Houseman} When I’m wrong, I say I’m wrong. [/Dr.Houseman]
I was wrong.
In your defense the “Gilded Age” era of American politics is probably one of the least popular and least covered by various popular histories and media treatments. Cleveland was probably the most interesting political figure of that era, and was dominant in the Democratic party for about 16 years or so–he actually wanted to serve a second full consecutive term after his second non-consecutive term drew to a close, but he had lost control of the party to the “Free Silver” faction and they nominated William Jennings Bryan instead. He didn’t quite “run” for the nomination like politicians do now (there wasn’t a primary process, it was convention based), but he certainly wanted it, and just didn’t have the party support.
Nixon may have been able to run again as Vice President, and could assume the office of President that way, so long as he isn’t actually elected as President. It depends on whether the courts construe the 22nd’s prohibition on electing a person President more than twice so as to make Nixon “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President” for the purposes of the 12th Amendment.
~Max
That’s an open argument. Al Franken once said that he’d run for president with Bill Clinton as his VP and then resign. Some folks think that would be fine (legally, at least) while others contend that Clinton’s status as a twice-elected would disqualify him from being elected as VP.
You can also succeed to the presidency more than once, but stay under the 2-year limit each time. The 22nd is pretty specific about “two years of a term”. Succeed twice, staying just under two years each time, and you can still be elected twice, for just under 12 years total. And there’s no limit to the number of times you can be vice president, so this can go arbitrarily high.
Not true. Amendment XII is perfectly clear on the subject. It finishes with the sentence:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Because Nixon was ineligible to run for President, he also could not run for Vice-president.
And if it said “constitutionally ineligible to be elected President”, I’d agree with you. But it doesn’t. I maintain the argument to be open, and unlikely to be resolved in the absence of a “test case”.
I agree, it’s not a settled matter. A lawyer for Nixon would argue that by that standard Reagan became ineligible to the office of President on January 6, 1981, the very day he was elected to his second term (or whenever Congress counted the votes).
~Max
1985, actually, but I understand what you mean.
(Reagan’s first term began in 1981; his second term began in 1985.)
Well, Cleveland DID win the popular vote in three consecutive elections, but the Electoral College screwed him the second time.
For most of the US’s history, we just went by Washington’s example, and followed the tradition he set of only two terms. Traditions can be strong, but they can also be unclear: Cleveland could have argued that he wouldn’t be breaking the tradition by running for a third nonconsecutive term, and nobody (except the voters) could have said otherwise.
The tradition held until FDR, the only President in our history to serve more than two terms (in any order): He was elected four times (but died fairly early in his fourth term). That’s what made people decide that just a tradition wasn’t enough, and they needed actual rules, which led to the amendment.
Though if you’ve run and won twice, you couldn’t run again.
If the law truly is about being ELECTED only twice: imagine a fellow is elected VP, and a week after inauguration, POTUS resigns / dies. Our Guy serves basically 4 years.
Then he runs for VP again, and again, the new POTUS resigns / dies right after election. Now Our Guy has basically served just under 8 years.
And it happens a THIRD time. Now he’s been in office for just under 12 years Is that allowed?
Naturally I’d be hesitant to have him as my VP candidate, since it seems like I wouldn’t last in office… but is it allowed?
Seems alright to me. The rule is,
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.
~Max
This is the point - a lot of Washington (and many other countries’ politics) is run on traditions. When those traditions are violated, then it becomes in the interests of a majority (we hope) to codify it as explicit.
A similar example is over whether Justice Thomas should have recused himself from a case his wife participated in arguing. There is nothing explicit except the judgement of the Justice themselves that requires recusing. Or that a general should wait X years before becoming Secretary of Defense. IIRC, Biden’s pick Austin was not the first to be given an explicit pass on this rule. The senior justice was usually, IIRC, given the position of Chief Justice - but GW explicitly chose the younger Roberts to be the leader of the court. Tradition is only as strong as those who choose to follow it.
Similarly, the Queen/Governor General has the power to refuse to sign bills into law, and to choose someone other than the election winner as prime minister. But - traditionally - they don’t. if they did, laws would change to fix things.
Going by the letter of the law/amendment, presumably a president could be a serial VP candidate with the collusion of his presidential running mate. If both president and VP, as well as a majority of congress, are in on the game, he doesn’t even have to run, just get elected by congress like Gerald Ford…
it occurs to me that with a supermajority a congress could impeach out the president and VP and install their own preference for president, the same guy over and over, no matter what the election said.
There was also a tradition for our Presidential vetoes in George Washington’s time. Vetoes only if he thought the law was unconstitutional. Blame Andrew Jackson for breaking that tradition. /ot
~Max