Back door around two-term limit?

While the 22nd doesn't directly prevent that 'back door', when you add the final sentence of the 12th, there is no possible back door...

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

zyffyr wrote:While the 22nd doesn't directly prevent that 'back door', when you add the final sentence of the 12th, there is no possible back door...

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Nice catch...

Don

-

zyffyr wrote:While the 22nd doesn't directly prevent that 'back door', when you add the final sentence of the 12th, there is no possible back door...

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Hence the comment about it being a million dollar question.

Yeah! What he says!

zyffyr wrote:While the 22nd doesn't directly prevent that 'back door', when you add the final sentence of the 12th, there is no possible back door...

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Not so fast zyffyr, smr.

I agree with you about the "spirit of the law."

However, the "letter of the law" still bears an ambiguity. This ambiguity represents a possible loophole. Possible, because the president that you currently favor has shown that loopholes and ambiguities can indeed be exploited.


"The wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice:

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.

Again we bump into some problems of literalness, though, because some would argue that a person who has already run up against the limits of the 22nd Amendment isn’t “constitutionally ineligible” to be President (i.e., that person doesn’t fail to meet one or more of the requirements specified in Article II of the constitution, such as being at least 35 years old or a natural-born citizen of the United States) but is merely constitutionally ineligible to be elected President."

So, technically, Barack isn't "constitutionally ineligible" for President, but simply ineligible to be "elected" president. And since the 12th hinges on the 22nd, the loophole possibly exists. It exists for a savvy, or unscrupulous, or supporter, or denier, or menace to democracy who carries enough ignorant constituents in his corner. Or someone with enough money to tie up the courts until it is resolved. Until then, will he be allowed to be on the ticket as VP if the people will it.

Hardwired requirements for President:

As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

cthia wrote:Not so fast zyffyr, smr.

I agree with you about the "spirit of the law."

However, the "letter of the law" still bears an ambiguity. This ambiguity represents a possible loophole. Possible, because the president that you currently favor has shown that loopholes and ambiguities can indeed be exploited.


"The wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice:

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.

Again we bump into some problems of literalness, though, because some would argue that a person who has already run up against the limits of the 22nd Amendment isn’t “constitutionally ineligible” to be President (i.e., that person doesn’t fail to meet one or more of the requirements specified in Article II of the constitution, such as being at least 35 years old or a natural-born citizen of the United States) but is merely constitutionally ineligible to be elected President."

So, technically, Barack isn't "constitutionally ineligible" for President, but simply ineligible to be "elected" president. And since the 12th hinges on the 22nd, the loophole possibly exists. It exists for a savvy, or unscrupulous, or supporter, or denier, or menace to democracy who carries enough ignorant constituents in his corner. Or someone with enough money to tie up the courts until it is resolved. Until then, will he be allowed to be on the ticket as VP if the people will it.

Hardwired requirements for President:

As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

That is my assessment. I believe that the 22nd Amendment was written by authors that presumed that no person who had been President would be so hungry for power that they would demean themselvess by serving as Vice President or Speaker of the House to become President again.

Yep, as it stands, Barack could become VP on a technicality. Trump's entire reign is a result of a great big series of technicalities.

The founding fathers never foresaw someone who would be so addicted to power who carries an absolute disdain and respect for democracy and the spirit of the law, who thinks he is not only above the law, but even worse, above the country.

No one can be barred a job because he is overqualified for it. From President to VP is a demotion. And a President may be overqualified for VP, but not ineligible for it. As a matter of fact, anyone qualified is eligible to hold all openings and offices of any job. In any order. Legally.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

cthia wrote:Not so fast zyffyr, smr.

I agree with you about the "spirit of the law."

However, the "letter of the law" still bears an ambiguity. This ambiguity represents a possible loophole. Possible, because the president that you currently favor has shown that loopholes and ambiguities can indeed be exploited.


"The wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice:

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.

Again we bump into some problems of literalness, though, because some would argue that a person who has already run up against the limits of the 22nd Amendment isn’t “constitutionally ineligible” to be President (i.e., that person doesn’t fail to meet one or more of the requirements specified in Article II of the constitution, such as being at least 35 years old or a natural-born citizen of the United States) but is merely constitutionally ineligible to be elected President."

So, technically, Barack isn't "constitutionally ineligible" for President, but simply ineligible to be "elected" president. And since the 12th hinges on the 22nd, the loophole possibly exists. It exists for a savvy, or unscrupulous, or supporter, or denier, or menace to democracy who carries enough ignorant constituents in his corner. Or someone with enough money to tie up the courts until it is resolved. Until then, will he be allowed to be on the ticket as VP if the people will it.

Hardwired requirements for President:

As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

That is my assessment. I believe that the 22nd Amendment was written by authors that presumed that no person who had been President would be so hungry for power that they would demean themselvess by serving as Vice President or Speaker of the House to become President again.

The distinction between "elected" and "serve" is a false one within the context of this discussion. The framers of the amendment quite clearly didn't want a president serving beyond two terms, with the exception as stated for the vp.

The 12th amendment clearly states that no person who is not eligible to be president can be vice president. Your back door is an illusion, cthia.

Don

-

No Don. Being Presidentvand being elected to the Presidency are two different things, as 9 people prove.

I can run for President. I can even win and be elected. I just can't assume the office.


Language matters, and if your arguement is that two different things are the same, then you have no arguement.

Or to put it differently, if they ment it to be the way you think then they would not have refered to elections.

Annachie wrote:No Don. Being Presidentvand being elected to the Presidency are two different things, as 9 people prove.

I can run for President. I can even win and be elected. I just can't assume the office.


Language matters, and if your arguement is that two different things are the same, then you have no arguement.

Or to put it differently, if they ment it to be the way you think then they would not have refered to elections.

Absolutely. "Serve" and "elected" are two distinct concepts within the Constitution itself. So why shouldn't it be different concepts within this discussion.

The Constitution itself uses "serve" to explain the possibility of a president to be in office for ten years, if he has "served" no more than two years of a previous president's term, to still be eligible to be "elected" to two full terms.